A   STATEMENT 


IN    RESPECT    TO    THE 


United  States  Naval  Observatory 


AND 


ITS    ORGANIZATION. 


PREPARED  BY 

LEWIS  BOSS, 

i( 

Director  of  Dudley  Observatory,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


1891. 


ALBANY : 

CHAS.  VAN  BENTHUYSEN  &  SONS, 
1891. 


This  Statement  in  reference  to  the  Naval  Observatory  was  prepared  some  months 
ago,  substantially  in  its  present  form.  Its  length  seemed  to  render  publication  inad- 
visable ;  and  it  was  not  originally  intended  for  that  purpose.  The  illegibility  of  the 
manuscript  copies,  together  with  expressions  of  opinion  from  friends  that  a  some- 
what detailed  statement  of  the  principles  and  evidence  upon  which  astronomers  base, 
their  views  in  regard  to  this  question  might  find  some  readers  who  would  deem  it 
more  satisfactory  than  a  mere  dogmatic  summary,  has  led  the  author  to  submit  this 
document  for  publication.  This  he  has  been  able  to  do  through  the  voluntary  con- 
tributions of  American  astronomers,  to  whom  his  acknowledgments  are  due. 

At  the  same  time — and  while  the  author  is  indebted  to  astronomers  for  many 
valuable  suggestions — he,  alone,  is  responsible  for  any  errors  of  fact  or  opinion  which 
this  Statement  may  contain. 

Albany,  N.  Y.,  December,  1891. 


M67214 


TABLE   OK   CONTENTS. 

PAGE. 

INTRODUCTION  : 

Cost  of  the  new  Naval  Observatory    .         .         ...         .         .  4      .  & 

The  Function  of  a  National  Observatory         .         .                  •  .    •  •         •  5- 

SECTION  I.     Opinions  of  Public  Men  in  Reference  to  a  Government  Observa- 
tory       .         .         ...         ,         .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  7 

SECTION  II.     Origin  of  the  Naval  Observatory      .         ....         .         .  10 

Appointment  of  the^First  Superintendent  .         .         .         .         .         .         .13 

SECTION  III.     Naval  and  Marine  Observatories  in  other  Countries          .         .  15 
Distinction  between  Marine  and  Astronomical  Observatories        .         .         .16 

SECTION  IV.     National  Astronomical  Observatories  in  other  Countries  .         .  17 

The  Imperial  Observatory  of  Russia,  at  Pulkowa       .         .         .        <.         .  18 

The  Royal  Observatory  at  Greenwich     .     •  f.     .  , .. ......       .         .         .  20 

Ovservatory  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope      .         .         .  .         .         .22 

The  National  Observatory,  at  Paris 23 

Observatories  Supported  by  the  German  Government  .         .         .         .24 

The  Argentine  National  Observatory,  at  Cordoba    .....  26 

SECTION  V.     The  Scientific  Record  of  the  United  States  Naval  Observatory     .  27 

Opinions  on  the  Zone  Work 29 

The  Naval  Observatory  in  1861  and  Later 30 

Work  with  the  Great  Telescope 32 

Astronomical  Researches  by  the  Professors         ......  33 

Respects  in  which  the  Observatory  has  Failed                  ....  35 

Opinion  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Naval  Observatory  upon  its  Recent 

Scientific  Record 37 

SECTION  VI.     Naval  Officers  as  Astronomers 38 

SECTION  VII.     Reasons  why  an  Astronomer  should  Direct  Astronomical  Work, 

and  why  Others  must  Fail .         .  43 

The  Superintendent  must  Choose  the  Field  of  Work       ....  43 

The  Direct  Supervision  of  Work         ......  .45 

The  Responsibility  of  Providing  Instrumental  Equipment        .         .         .  46. 

Editorial  Duties  of  the  Superintendent        .......  49 

Advantages  of  a  Long  Term  of  Service  in  the  Superintendency       .         .  50 

Objections  to  Skilled  Superintendence  Considered 51 

The  Question  of  Comparative  Expenditure 54 

SECTION  VIII.     Reform  needed  in  the  System  of  Employment  at  the  Observa- 
tory   .                                                                                ....  56 

CONCLUSION .  58 

Division  of  Civil  and  Military  Duties       .......  59 

The  efforts  of  Astronomers  to  secure  Reform  in  the  Method  of  Superin- 
tendence at  the  Naval  Observatory 5£ 

NOTE  A.     Report  of  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs,  in  1842  .         .         .         .64 

NOTE  B.     Resources  of  the  Naval  Observatory  since  July  1,  1867         .         .  66- 


Within  the  past  decade  the  Government  of  llie  United  Sfates  has 
been  making  provision  for  an  astronomical  observatory,  which  in  cost 
is  scarcely  to  be  surpassed  anywhere  in  the  world.  Not  including  some 
minor  items,  the  appropriations  for  this  purpose  thus  far  made  are : 

For  purchase  of  site $75,000  00 

For  construction  of  principal  buildings 400,000  00 

For    other    constructions,    alteration,  repair   and 

remounting  of  instruments,  removal,  etc 136,689  00 

Total  for  the  new  Naval  Observatory $611,689  00 

In  addition  to  these  sums,  the  Naval  Observatory  was  already  in 
possession  of  instruments,  books  and  furniture,  the  original  cost  of 
which  was  not  less  than  $100,000.  The  great  equatorial  telescope  cost 
$50,000,  less  than  twenty  years  ago.  The  real  value  of  all  this 
apparatus  for  the  purpose  of  removal  to  the  new  observatory  cannot  be 
regarded  as  less  than  $50,000.  This  brings  up  the  cost  of  the  new 
Naval  Observatory  to  not  less  than  $650,000.  But  when  the  current 
appropriation  of  $136,689  shall  have  been  exhausted,  the  new  observa- 
tory cannot  by  any  means  be  regarded  as  completely  equipped.  Tak- 
ing as  a  basis  the  estimate  of  $294,487.29,  officially  submitted  to  Con- 
gress at  its  last  session  (51st  Cong.,  2d  session,  H.  R.  Ex.  Doc.,  Nos. 
7J  and  147),  about  $160,000  more  will  be  needed  to  carry  out  the  plans 
which  have  been  made.  This  would  raise  the  total  cost  of  the  plant  for 
the  new  Naval  Observatory  to  more  than  $800,000. 

The  sum  already  appropriated  is  larger  than  that  which  has  been 
devoted  to  a  like  purpose  for  any  national  observatory  in  the  world. 
The  Russian  Imperial  Observatory  at  Pulkowa,  has  always,  heretofore, 
been  regarded  as  the  most  remarkable  example  of  the  generosity  of 
governments  toward  astronomy.  It  has  an  equipment  of  unexampled 
perfection,  and  is  provided  with  quarters  for  all  the  employees.  The 
original  cost  in  1845  was  2,100,000  paper  roubles,  usually  estimated  to  be 
about  equivalent  to  $340,000.  Extraordinary  additions  to  the  equip- 
ment in  recent  years,  including  the  astro-physical  laboratory,  as  well  as 
the  thirty-inch  telescope,  the  largest,  or  most  powerful,  in  possession  of 
any  national  observatory,  may  possibly  have  added  $200,000  to  the  cost 
of  plant. 

The  cost  of  the  new  Naval  Observatory  is  large  enough  to  have  built, 
-equipped,  and  to  have  furnished  funds  for  the  perpetual  endowment  of 
two  such  institutions  as  the  Bonn  Observatory,  renowned  for  the  great 
number  and  lasting  value  of  its  contributions  to  astronomical  science 
throughout  the  past  fifty  years'.  Obviously  the  people  of  the  United 


States  are  justified  in  anticipating  important  results  to  follow  this  large 
expenditure. 

But  it  is  not  simply  in  relation  to  the  new  observatory  that  Congress 
ha-s  shown  iis .  liberality.  If  we  include  extraordinary  expenditures, 
more  than  $2,000,000  have  been  appropriated  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Observatory  during  the  past  twenty-five  years.  Excluding  these,  there 
has  been  expended  for  current  maintenance  of  the  Naval  Observatory, 
an  average  of  $56,000  annually,  during  the  same  period.  (Appended 
note  B.)  With  two  or  three  exceptions,  this  sum  is  very  much  greater 
than  has  ever  been  devoted  to  the  like  maintenance  of  any  other 
observatory  in  the  world.  Even  excluding  the  salaries  of  the  superin- 
tendent and  other  Iftie  officers  of  the  Navy,  the  annual  expenditure  has 
averaged  very  nearly  $41,000.  (Appended  note  B.)  The  respective 
amounts  for  the  present  fiscal  year  are  materially  greater  than  these 
averages. 

Large  as  these  sums  are,  they  are  deemed  inadequate  for  the  future. 
In  his  annual  report  for  the  year  ending  June  30,  1890,  the  Superintend- 
ent says : 

"  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add  that,  when  the  new  Naval  Observa- 
tory is  completed  and  equipped,  the  force  of  astronomers  and  assistant 
astronomers  will  have  to  be  materially  increased  if  the  observatory  is  to 
be  worthy  of  our  great  and  progressive  country." 

These  expenditures  very  naturally  invite  the  careful  scrutiny  of 
those  who  are  conversant  with  the  history  and  present  state  of 
astronomy ;  they  must  sooner  or  later  attract  the  serious  attention  of 
Congress  ;  and  they  warrant  the  inquiry,  in  behalf  of  the  people  of  the 
United  States,  by  those  who  are  capable  of  judging  of  the  answer,  as  to 
what  precautions  have  been  and  are  to  be  taken  to  secure  a  return  in 
results  corresponding  in  importance  to  this  more  than  imperial  munifi- 
cence. If  the  money  has  been  judiciously  and  economically  expended ; 
if  there  is  promise  of  adequate  scientific  return,  and  if  the  nation  can 
justly  be  proud  of  its  observatory,  it  is  not  likely  that  the  people  will 
seriously  object  to  this  large  expenditure.  It  is  consonant  with  the 
growing  preeminence  of  our  country  in  wealth  and  power,  to  desire  to 
have  the  best  equipped  and  most  useful  observatory  in  the  world. 

What  object  is  this  expenditure  designed  to  subserve  ?  Is  the  whole, 
or  any  great  part  of  it  necessary  in  relation  to  the  practical  operation  of 
the  Navy  ?  If  it  is,  then  the  propriety  of  a  naval  administration  for  it 
is  more  easily  understood.  It  will  be  shown,  however,  that  there  is 
absolutely  no  excuse  for  more  than  a  small  fraction  of  the  appropriations 
which  have  been  made  for  the  Naval  Observatory,  if  practical  service  to 
the  Navy  is  alone  considered  ;  that  such  an  establishment  as  this  has 
been,  and  as  the  new  observatory  is  evidently  designed  to  be,  is  not 
needed  by  the  Navy ;  and  that  naval  officers  in  common  with  astrono- 
mers, have  regarded  it  as  an  institution  maintained  to  promote  the 


national  interest  in  astronomical  investigation.  Supposing  the  latter 
view  to  be  correct,  it  is  possible  that  a  question  may  arise  as  to  the  best 
form  of  administration  for  a  national  observatory  which  is  essentially 
astronomical.  It  might  be  supposed  at  first  sight  that  nothing  could 
be  more  natural  than  that  an  astronomer  should  be  chosen  to  manage 
an  astronomical  observatory.  Perhaps  the  majority  of  people,  left  to 
their  own  common  sense  view  of  the  subject,  would  resent  the  idea  that 
there  could  be  two  opinions  about  it,  and  would  look  with  some  degree 
of  impatience  upon  a  formal  argument  to  prove  that  an  astronomer 
ought  to  be  selected  for  the  chief  direction  of  astronomical  work,  as  too 
much  like  an  attempt  to  prove  an  axiom.  This  is  an  embarrassment 
which  the  advocates  of  reform  in  the  administration  of  the  Naval 
Observatory  have  to  encounter.  Yet  it  appears  to  be  necessary,  since 
the  authorities  of  Government  have  practically  endorsed  the  opposite 
view,  though  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  merits  of  the  question  have 
heretofore  received,  either  from  Congress  or  from  executive  authority, 
the  attention  which  its  importance  demands.*  The  Superintendent  of 
the  Naval  Observatory  has  always  been  a  line  officer  of  the  Navy.  It 
has  been  held  by  officers  of  the  Navy  on  duty  at  the  Observatory — though 
probably  not  by  naval  officers  at  large  —  that  they  can  conduct  its 
affairs  with  more  propriety  and  efficiency  than  would  be  possible  were 
the  chief  control  exercised  by  a  civilian  astronomer.  On  the  other  hand, 
astronomers  maintain  that  the  Government  observatory  should  be  placed 
in  charge  of  an  astronomer ;  that  the  conduct  of  a  government  observa- 
tory by  a  man  who  is  not  an  astronomer  of  experience  is  an  anomaly 
without  relevant  precedent  in  the  history  of  astronomy ;  that  it  has  no 
warrant  in  a  discussion  of  the  abstract  principles  which  apply  to  the 
case  ;  and  that  it  finds  no  justification  in  the  results  which  have  actually 
been  produced  under  this  form  of  administration  by  the  Naval  Observa- 
tory itself.  Naval  officers  at  the  Observatory  have  hitherto  ignored  the 
force  of  universal  precedent,  as  they  may  do  if  they  have  succeeded  in 
establishing  another  of  greater  weight ;  they  contest  the  argument  from 
abstract  principles  ;  they  have  declared  at  various  times  that  scientific 
results  fully  justify  the  form  of  administration  adopted  for  the  Naval 
Observatory. 

THE  FUNCTION  OP  A  NATIONAL  OBSERVATORY. 

* 

It  would  be  idle  at  this  late  day  to  urge  the  support  of  national  ob- 
servatories on  the  ground  of  practical  utility  alone.  Their  practical 
utility  is  great,  but  it  is  secondary  and  incidental.  The  time  has  come 

*  Since  this  was  written,  Hon.  Benjamin  F.  Tracy,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  in 
his  annual  report  for  1891,  has  recommended  to  Congress  "the  adoption  of  legisla- 
tion which  shall  enable  the  President  to  appoint,  at  a  sufficient  salary,  without 
restriction,  from  persons  either  within  or  outside  of  the  naval  service,  the  ablest  and 
most  accomplished  astronomer  who  can  be  found  for  the  position  of  Superintendent" 
of  the  Naval  Observatory  at  Washington 


6 

when  national  observatories  must  rely  for  support  almost  wholly  upon 
the  more  powerful  argument  of  scientific  utility.  It  does  happen  that 
there  are  departments  of  astronomy  which  have  an  important  relation 
to  commercial  utility.  Even  in  respect  to  them,  at  the  present  day,  the 
necessity  for  the  great  labor  and  refinement  which  is  practiced  upon 
them  arises  almost  wholly  from  theoretical  and  scientific  needs,  rather 
than  from  those  which  are  purely  practical ;  and  at  the  same  time,  un- 
less this  refinement  of  methods  and  work  is  practiced  at  any  given  ob- 
servatory, its  results  will  possess  no  value  in  comparison  with  those 
which  are  elsewhere  produced. 

There  are  also  other  important  fields  of  astronomical  investigation, 
which  do  not  pretend  to  minister  to  the  merely  physical  needs  of  man- 
kind, but  which  must,  nevertheless,  usually  be  cared  for  by  governments. 
To  provide  for  that  class  of  astronomical  researches,  wherein  constantly 
recurring  operations  must  be  faithfully  maintained,  year  after  year,  for 
centuries,  perhaps,  and  in  which  definite  deductions  can  be  reached  only 
through  the  accumulation  of  a  great  multitude  of  identical  or  similar 
measurements  and  calculations,  where  the  interest  must  be  maintained 
at  high  tension  through  years  of  toil — often  extending  beyond  the  life- 
time of  a  single  individual, — this  is  the  work  of  a  national  observatory; 
it  is  the  world's  work  and  must  be  done.  Ultimately,  these  depart- 
ments of  astronomical  research  yield  the  most  comprehensive  and  im- 
pressive truths  known  to  science.  Individual  workers  in  astronomy 
having  small  means  usually  prefer  to  engage  in  work  where  the  attain- 
ment of  a  definite  result  is  not  too  much  imperilled  by  the  accidents 
always  possible  to  an  individual  life.  They  must  also  confine  them- 
selves to  undertakings  which  there  is  a  reasonable  prospect  of  carrying 
out  with  limited  assistance.  National  observatories  are  not  maintained 
altogether  to  serve  the  personal  tastes  of  individual  astronomers.  They 
are  public  institutions,  subject  to  public  criticism  as  well  as  to  praise, 
arid  established  to  satisfy  the  most  general  demands  of  the  world  for 
astronomical  information  of  indispensable  general  interest  in  depart- 
ments not  likely  to  receive  adequate  attention  at  private  observatories. 

Hence  the  directors  of  nearly  all  great  national  observatories  are  re- 
quired to  report  their  proceedings  to  a  board  of  visitors,  or  commission 
of  astronomers,  whose  business  it  is  to  see  that  the  observatory  subject  to 
their  inspection  is  properly  and  efficiently  meeting  a  public  demand. 
In  this  as  in  other  matters  it  is  the  function  of  Government  to  do  forlhe 
people  what  ought  to  be  done,  and  what  the  people  cannot  so  well  do 
for  themselves  in  their  unorganized  capacity.  This  claim  for  astronomy 
has  been  advocated  by  great  statesmen  in  all  times  ;  and  it  is  now  prac- 
tically acknowledged  by  every  civilized  government  in  the  world. 

Well  understanding  these  facts,  the  friends  of  astronomy  in  this 
country  have  always  been  solicitous  for  the  proper  conduct  of  the  only 


astronomical  observatory  which  is  supported  by  our  Government.  They 
believe  that  its  most  important  function  is  discharged  when  it  sustains 
and  enlarges  the  intellectual  dignity  and  prestige  of  the  nation.  They 
believe  that  Americans  are  at  least  the  equals  of  any  other  nationality 
in  the  natural  capacity  for  successful  scientific  investigation.  The  ob- 
servatory supported  by  the  Government  must  stand  before  the  world  as 
largely  representing  American  astronomy.  Astronomers,  therefore, 
consider  it  an  entirely  warrantable  exercise  of  the  privileges  of  citizen- 
ship, when  they  respectfully  urge  that  the  authorities  of  Government 
give  serious  and  immediate  attention  to  the  question  whether  an  estab- 
lishment, such  as  the  Naval  Observatory  aims  to  be,  is  more  properly 
directed  through  military  organization  under  the  superintendence  of  a 
naval  officer,  than  it  is  likely  to  be  under  a  civilian  organization  with 
direction  by  an  astronomer. 

The  construction  of  a  new  observatory,  on  an  unexampled  scale  of  ex- 
pediture  renders  the  present  a  peculiarly  appropriate  time  for  an  im- 
partial examination  of  this  question  by  those  with  whom  the  decision 
must  rest. 

The  statement  which  follows  is  designed  to  present  the  claims  of 
American  astronomers  in  relation  to  the  administration  of  the  Govern- 
ment observatory  through  arguments  based  upon  competent  evidence. 
To  a  great  extent  this  evidence  can  be  drawn  from  official  sources.  In 
regard  to  the  statements  of  scientific  facts  and  opinions,  it  is  believed 
that  every  one  of  them  is  susceptible  of  verification  by  the  published 
records,  and  by  the  united  testimony  of  the  most  competent  astronomers. 

SECTION  I. — OPINIONS  OF  PUBLIC  MEN  DURING  THE  FIRST  HALF  OF 
THIS  CENTURY  IN  REFERENCE  TO  A  GOVERNMENT  OBSERVATORY. 

It  becomes  necessary  to  look  somewhat  carefully  into  the  origin  of 
the  Naval  Observatory ;  since  this  origin  is  often  cited  in  defense  of  the 
present  system.  It  is  necessary  to  determine,  first,  what  sort  of  an  in- 
stitution the  early  advocates  of  a  national  observatory  for  this  country 
intended,  and,  secondly,  whether  or  not,  Congress  with  due  deliberation 
placed  an  astronomical  observatory  in  the  hands  of  naval  officers. 

The  Naval  Observatory  derived  its  existence  from  the  law  of  1842, 
which  authorized  the  construction  of  a  new  building  termed  the  "  Depot 
of  Charts  and  Instruments."  The  public  documents  contain  much  evi- 
dence that  the  establishment  of  a  national  observatory  had  been  favor- 
ably considered  by  executive  authority  and  by  committees  of  Congress 
at  various  times  in  the  early  history  of  the  country.*  A  few  citations 
will  suffice  to  illustrate  the  character  of  the  whole. 

*The  late  Professor  Nourse,  U.  S.  N.,  in  his  "  Memoir  of  the  Founding- and 
Progress  of  the  United  States  Naval  Observatory  "  (Washing-ton  Astronomical  Ob- 
servations for  1871,  Appendix  IV.)  has  collated  citations  upon  this  subject  from  the 
public  documents  of  that  period. 


8 

During  the  administration  of  President  Madison,  the  establishment 
of  a  first  meridian  and  of  an  astronomical  observatory  was  advocated. 
The  question  had  been  referred  to  Mr.  Monroe,  Secretary  of  State,  for 
an  opinion.  He  reported,  July  3,  1812,  advocating  the  proposition  and 
emphasizing  the  advantages  to  science.  Among  other  things  in  refer- 
ence to  a  first  meridian  for  America,  he  said  : 

"For  this  purpose  an  observatory  would  be  of  essential  utility.  It  is 
only  in  such  an  institution,  to  be  founded  by  the  public,  that  all  the 
necessary  implements  are  likely  to  be  collected  together  ;  that  systematic 
observations  can  be  made  for  any  length  of  time  ;  and  that  the  public 
can  be  made  secure  of  the  results  of  the  labors  of  scientific  men.  In 
favor  of  such  an  institution,  it  is  sufficient  to  remark  that  every  nation 
which  has  established  a  first  meridian  has  also  established  an  observa- 
tory." (Am.  Misc.  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.,  p.  194.) 

The  committee  of  Congress  to  which  this  was  referred,  of  which  Hon. 
S.  L.  Mitchell  was  chairman  and  Hon.  John  C.  Calhoun  a  member, 
reported  on  Jan.  20,  1813,  a  bill  for  a  national  observatory,  and  in 
support  of  it  said  among  other  things  : 

"  The  most  ready  way  of  obtaining  the  information  they  desired, 
from  noting  the  phenomena  of  the  heavens,  is  by  the  establishment  of 
an  observatory.  This  may  be  erected  at  the  city  of  Washington.  By 
such  an  institution,  means  may  be  adopted,  not  only  to  fix  the  first 
meridian,  but  to  ascertain  a  great  number  of  other  astronomical  facts 
and  occurrences  through  the  vigilance  of  a  complete  astronomer."  (Am. 
Misc.  State  Papers,  Vol.  II.,  p.  197.) 

This  is  the  idea  of  a  true  national  observatory  in  a  nut-shell.  A 
memorial  from  Mr.  William  Lambert,  an  amateur  astronomer  of  great 
ability  who  had  been  employing  his  leisure  to  determine  the  longitude 
of  the  Capitol,  was  the  occasion  of  these  reports.  At  a  later  date,  Feb. 
25,  1824,  President  Monroe  transmitted  to  Congress-  another  and  more 
elaborate  memorial  by  Mr.  Lambert,  who  had  meanwhile  resigned  from 
the  Pension  Office,  to  be  employed  on  this  longitude  work  for  the 
Government. 

In  his  first  message  to  Congress,  in  1825,  President  John  Quincy 
Adams  urged  the  establishment  of  a  national  observatory  in  these 
words  : 

"  Connected  with  the  establishment  of  a  university,  or  separate  from 
it,  might  be  undertaken  the  erection  of  an  astronomical  observatory, 
with  provision  for  the  support  of  an  astronomer,  to  be  in  constant  at- 
tendance on  the  phenomena  of  the  heavens,  and  for  the  periodical  pub- 
lication of  his  observations.  It  is  with  no  feeling  of  pride  as  an 
American,  that  the  remark  may  be  made,  that,  on  the  comparatively 
small  territorial  surface  of  Europe,  there  are  existing  more  than  one 
hundred  and  thirty  of  these  light-houses  of  the  skies  ;  while  throughout 
the  whole  American  hemisphere  there  is  not  one.  If  we  reflect  a  mo- 
ment upon  the  discoveries  which  in  the  last  four  centuries  have  been 
made  in  the  physical  constitution  of  the  universe  by  means  of  these 
buildings  and  of  obseryers  stationed  in  them,  shall  we  doubt  of  their 


9 

usefulness  to  every  nation  ?  And  while  scarcely  a  year  passes  over  our 
heads  without  bringing  some  new  astronomical  discovery  to  light,  which 
we  must  fain  receive  at  second  hand  from  Europe,  are  we  not  cutting 
ourselves  off  from  the  means  of  returning  light  for  light,  while  we  have 
neither  observatory  nor  observer  upon  our  half  of  the  globe,  and  the 
earth  revolves  in  perpetual  darkness  to  our  unsearching  eyes  ?" 

The  select  committee,  to  which  this  recommendation  was  referred, 
offered  a  bill  "to  establish  an  observatory  in  the  District  of  Columbia," 
and  in  support  of  it  adopted  a  report  prepared  by  General  Macomb, 
Chief  of  Engineers,  in  which  occurs  the  following  : 

"  The  astronomer  ought  to  be  independent  in  the  performance  of  his 
duties,  but  accountable  for  the  results,  for  his  industry,  arid  the  correct- 
ness of  his  observations  and  calculations.  The  results  of  his  scientific 
labors  should  be  given  to  the  world,  in  order  that  they  might  be  duly 
examined  by  astronomers  of  different  countries.  *  .  *  *  Foreign  as 
well  as  domestic  criticism  would  thus  stimulate  the  astronomer  to 
greater  vigilance  and  attention.  *  *  *  As  an  astronomer  with  the 
requisite  talents  and  qualifications  would  be  obliged  to  devote  all  his 
time  and  attention  to  the  duties  of  his  station,  it  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  a  fit  person  could  be  procured  for  this  situation  without  the  com- 
pensation of  a  liberal  salary."  (H.  R.,  Report  No.  124,  19th  Cong.,  1st 
session.) 

The  committee,  through  the  report  of  General  Macomb,  also  recom- 
mends that,  "  as  soon  as  circumstances  would  permit,  a  nautical  almanac, 
or  astronomical  ephemeris  should  be  prepared  and  published  for  the  use 
of  the  Navy  and  commercial  marine." 

The  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  on  March  18,  1830,  in  reply  to  a  letter 
from  the  chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  wrote: 

"As  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  obtain  information  on  the  subject,  an 
astronomical  observatory  would  be  a  desirable  establishment  in  the 
United  States  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1st.  In  a  national  point  of  view,  as  it  would  furnish  the  means  of 
making  such  observations  as  would  enable  astronomers  to  ascertain  or 
calculate  the  positions  of  the  heavenly  bodies  at  any  time  without  being 
dependent  on  other  nations  for  the  same ;  and  would  be,  moreover,  a 
fixed  point  to  whose  meridian  (commonly  called  a  first  meridian  when 
used  for  geographical  purposes)  terrestrial  objects  may,  with  certainty, 
be  referred,  as  far  as  respects  their  longitudes. 

2d.  It  would,  furthermore,  be  desirable  in  a  scientific  point  of  view, 
as  it  would  present  the  means  of  comparing  certain  astronomical  results, 
for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  figure  of  the  earth  and  improving 
theories  relative  to  the  motions  of  the  planetary  bodies.'  (Nourse, 
"  Memoir  on  the  Founding,"  etc.,  p.  12.) 

In  this  communication  the  practical  side  of  the  scientific  duties  of  a 
Government  observatory  are  outlined. 

John  Quincy  Adams,  chairman  of  a  select  committee  of  the  House  of 
-Representatives,  in  his  second  report  on  the  Smithson  Fund,  March  5, 

1840,  says : 

"  The  express  object  of  an  observatory  is  the  increase  of  knowledge 
by  new  discovery.  *  *  *  There  is  no  richer  field  of  science  opened 


10 

to  the  exploration  of  man  in  search  of  knowledge  than  astronomical 
observation ;  nor  is  there,  in  the  opinion  of  this  committee,  any  duty 
more  impressively  incumbent  on  all  human  governments  than  that  of 
furnishing  means,  and  facilities,  and  rewards,  to  those  who  devote  the 
labors  of  their  lives  to  the  indefatigable  industry,  the  unceasing  vigi- 
lance, and  the  bright  intelligence  indispensable  to  success  in  these 
pursuits.  (H.  R.  Report,  No.  277,  27th  Cong.,  1st  session.) 

In  1842,  Mr.  Adams  reiterated  his  views  in  support  of  the  establish- 
ment of  a  national  observatory  in  his  third  report  on  the  Smithsoii  Fund, 
together  with  a  bill  for  that  purpose.  (H.  R.  Rep.  No.  587,  bill  386 ; 
27th  Cong.,  2d  session.)  Notwithstanding  the  bitter  political  animosi- 
ties of  the  time,  the  influence  of  Mr.  Adams  (most  vigorously  exerted  in 
1826,  1838,  1840,  1$42  and  1844)  contributed  more  than  any  other  to 
prepare  official  sentiment  for  the  establishment  of  an  astronomical 
observatory  by  the  Government.  This  fact  is  clearly  recognized  by 
Lieut.  M.  F.  Maury,  the  first  Superintendent  of  the  Naval  Observatory, 
in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Adams,  dated  Nov.  17,  1847.  Lieutenant  Maury  says  : 

"  Your  efforts  to  advance  in  America  the  cause  of  practical  astronomy 
are  known  to  the  world.  The  lively  interest  which  you  continue  to 
manifest  in  all  that  concerns  the  observatory,  causes  you  to  be  con- 
sidered as  one  of  its  most  active  and  zealous  friends.  It  is  proud  of  the 
relation.  *  *  *  As  a  subject  for  congratulation  with  one  who  has 
borne  so  conspicuous  a  part  in  establishing  a  Naval  and  National 
Observatory  in  this  country,  permit  me  to  call  your  attention,"  etc. 
(Southern  Literary  Messenger,  Vol.  XIV.,  p.  4.) 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  so  late  as  June, 
1844,  when  the  buildings  and  instruments  of  the  Naval  Observatory 
were  nearly  ready  for  use,  Mr.  Adams  did  not  then  consider  the  new 
"House  for  the  Depot  of  Charts"  as  suited  to  fulfil  the  object  which  he 
and  other  friends  of  a  national  astronomical  observatory  had  in  view  ; 
for,  on  June  7,  1844,  as  chairman  of  a  select  committee,  in  a  report  on 
the  disposition  of  the  Smithsoii  funds,  accompanied  with  a  bill,  the 
establishment  of  a  national  observatory  was  specified  as  one  of  the  ob- 
jects to  be  provided  for  from  the  funds  arising  from  the  Smithson  bequest. 
It  was  recommended  that  the  accumulated  interest,  $300,000,  be  set 
apart  for  building,  equipment  and  endowment.  He  was  not  then 
aware  of  the  extent  to  which  a  simple  bill  to  provide  a  house  for  the 
depot  might  be  construed  as  conferring  authority  for  the  establishment 
of  one  of  the  most  lavishly  supported  astronomical  institutions  of  modern 
times. 

SECTION  II.— THE  ORIGIN  OP  THE  NAVAL  OBSERVATORY. 
The  history  of  the  immediate  official  acts  which  led  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  Naval  Observatory  can  be  related  in  a  brief  space.  Since 
1830,  the  Navy  had  occupied  a  small  rented  house  in  Washington  as  a 
depot  of  charts, — that  is  to  say,  a  place  in  which  maps,  charts,  chro- 
nometers and  other  nautical  appliances  could  be  stored  arid  from  which, 


11 

from  time  to  time,  they  could  be  issued  as  needed.  Connected  with  the 
house  was  a  small  temporary  structure,  or  observing  room,  which  served 
the  purpose  of  sheltering  some  unimportant  astronomical  instruments 
that  were  chiefly  employed  for  the  purpose  of  rating  the  chronometers. 
These  in  the  year  1837  were  placed  in  charge  of  Lieutenant  Gilliss, 
who  immediately  developed  an  interest  in  astronomical  pursuits,  for 
which  the  observations,  deemed  advisable  to  be  made  in  connection 
with  the  exploring  expedition  of  Lieutenant  Wilkes  in  1838  and  subse- 
quent years,  afforded  a  welcome  opportunity.  Lieutenant  Grilliss  proved 
to  be  a  remarkably  assiduous  observer  who,  in  his  scientific  enthusiasm, 
accomplished  far  more  than  was  called  for  by  the  letter  of  his  instruc- 
tions. With  time  and  practice  he  gained  facility  in  the  use  of  the 
simple  instruments  at  his  command,  and,  no  doubt,  it  is  chiefly  to  his 
influence  that  the.  plan  for  what  was  to  become  a  Naval  Observatory 
was  proposed  and  executed.  In  his  Annual  Report  for  1841,  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Navy,  acting  upon  the  report  of  the  Navy  Commissioners 
as  to  the  inadequacy  of  the  then  existing  office  for  charts  and  instru- 
ments, said : 

"  Permit  me  to  express  my  entire  approval  of  the  suggestion  of  the 
Commissioners,  in  relation  to  a  suitable  depot  of  charts  and  instruments 
belonging  to  the  Navy.  These  have  been  procured  at  great  labor  and 
expense,  and  are  indispensable  in  the  naval  service.  The  small  expendi- 
ture which  will  be  necessary  to  preserve  them  in  a  condition,  always 
ready  for  use,  is  not  worth  a  moment's  consideration  when  compared 
with  the  great  purposes  they  are  designed  to  answer.  They  are  a  nec- 
essary part  of  a  naval  establishment  worthy  of  the  present  and  grow- 
ing greatness  of  our  country."  (Ex.  Doc.,  27th  Cong.,  2d,  session,  Vol. 
1,  p.  367.) 

It  appears  likely  from  the  interesting  report  of  Lieutenant  Gilliss  of 
February  7,  1845  (Senate  Doc.,  No.  114;  28th  Cong.,  2d  session),  that 
not  much  attention  would  have  been  paid  to  this  proposal  but  for  the 
personal  exertions  with  members  of  both  Houses  of  Congress  by  Lieu- 
tenant Gilliss  himself.  The  bill  which  finally  passed  on  the  last  day  of 
the  session  (approved  August  31.  1842).  reads : 

"An  act  to  authorize  the  construction  of  a  depot  of  charts  and  instru- 
ments of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States.  Be  it  enacted"  etc. 

"  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  be,  and  he  is  hereby,  authorized  to 
contract  for  the  building  of  a  suitable  house  for  a  depot  of  charts  and 
instruments  of  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,  on  a  plan  not  exceeding 
in  cost  twenty-five  thousand  dollars."  [Section  2  appropriates  $10,000 
for  the  purposes  of  this  act,  and  section  3  makes  provisions  for  the  site.] 

Under  the  provisions  of  this  law,  Lieutenant  Gilliss,  acting  under  the 
orders  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  proceeded  to  construct  and  equip 
the  present  Naval  Observatory. 

This  was  not  quite  all.  The  bill  which  was  introduced  in  the  House, 
March  15,  1842,  and  which  was  identical  in  terms  with  the  Senate  bill 
that  finally  became  a  law,  was  accompanied  with  a  report  by  the  Com- 


12 

mittee  on  Naval  Affairs,  Hon.  Francis  Mallory,  chairman.  (H.  R.  No. 
449 ;  27th  Cong.,  2d  session.  See  also  appended  Note  A.) 

Mr.  Mallory  appears  to  have  warmly  espoused  the  cause  which  Lieu- 
tenant Gilliss  w as  advocating,  and  devotes  some  paragraphs  of  his  report 
to  consideration  of  astronomical  needs.  (Appended  Note  A.)  "A  small 
observatory  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  depot,"  he  says,  u  without  it 
the  duties  cannot  be  performed."  This  statement,  together  with  other 
comments  by  Mr.  Mallory,  favorable  to  the  idea  that  astronomical  work 
should  be  carried  on  by  the  Navy,  appears  to  have  been  considered 
sufficient  authorization  for  the  construction  of  an  observatory  on  a  large 
scale  for  the  Navy. 

In  his  report  of  1845  previously  cited,  Lieutenant  Gilliss  says  : 

"  Taking  the  report  of  the  naval  committee  which  accompanied  the 
bill  (See  Report  No.  449,  House  of  Representatives,  session  1841-2)  as 
the  exponent  of  the  will  of  Congress,  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the 
Navy  directed  me,  on  the  9th  September,  1842,  to  visit  the  principal 
Northern  cities,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  information  respecting  a 
plan,  which,  whilst  it  combined  essentials  should  riot  exceed  in  cost  the 
appropriated  sum." 

That  the  Navy  Department,  though  without  express  authority,  defi- 
nitely intended  to  establish  an  astronomical  observatory,  as  distin- 
guished from  such  an  observatory  as  it  had  in  connection  with  the  old 
depot,  may  be  perceived,  not  only  from  the  character  of  new  equipment 
provided  after  prolonged  journeyings  and  numerous  consultations  with 
American  and  European  astronomers  by  Lieutenant  Gilliss,  but  also 
from  the  following  paragraphs,  among  others,  in  the  aforesaid  report : 

"  Much  interest  was  evinced  in  the  success  of  the  Naval  Observatory 
by  the  distinguished  savans  I  had  the  honor  to  meet ;  and,  in  token  of 
their  gratification  at  the  establishment  of  an  institution  by  the  United 
States,  where  science  will  be  prosecuted,  they  have  contributed  to  its 
library  the  following  books.  *  *  * 

"  In  the  mere  store  rooms  for  the  charts  and  instruments,  or  depot,  as 
it  is  called,  I  feel  no  anxiety.  The  house  on  Capitol  Hill  would  have 
answered  quite  as  well  as  any  other  [up  to  1842,  Gilliss  had  been  superin- 
tendent of  that  establishment],  and  a  three  and  a  half  feet  transit,  in  a 
box  ten  feet  square,  would  have  served  to  obtain  the  time  for  the  com- 
paring clock.  These,  therefore,  possessed  no  attractions  for  me,  and  I 
should  have  regarded  it  as  time  misspent  to  labor  so  earnestly,  only  to 
establish  a  depot.  My  aim  was  higher.  It  was  to  place  an  institution 
under  the  management  of  naral  officers,  where,  in  the  practical  pursuit 
of  the  highest  known  branch  of  science,  they  would  compel  an  acknow- 
ledgment of  abilities  hitherto  withheld  from  the  service." 

That  the  new  observatory  should  have  a  naval  organization  rests  on 
better  authority  than  that  for  founding  an  observatory.  Evidently  a 
new  "  house  for  a  depot  of  charts  "  was  intended  for  the  Navy.  Further- 
more, in  the  report  of  Mr.  Mallory,  are  found  opinions  of  the  committee 
as  to  the  manner  in  which  astronomical  and  meteorological  observations 
can  best  be  conducted. 


13 

"  If  officers  can  be  found  with  taste  for  such  duties,"  says  the  com- 
mittee, "  an  observatory  will  give  more  information  to  the  world  under 
a  military  organization,  in  one  year,  than  under  any  other  direction  in 
two."  *  *  *  *  "Night  watching  in  stormy  weather  finds  few 
followers  and  we  can  only  hope  to  obtain  the  desired  information  [in 
meteorology]  when  those  engaged  in  its  pursuit  have  duty  to  compel  a 
flagging  inclination."  (More  fully  in  appended  Note  A). 

These  views  undoubtedly  indicate  that  in  the  judgment  of  the  com- 
mittee, our  naval  officers,  if  given  the  opportunity,  would  far  outstrip 
the  astronomers  of  the  old  world  in  the  amount  and  value  of  scientific 
work  to  be  produced. 

Hitherto,  there  has  been  a  tradition  that,  when  the  question  of  future 
management  of  the  observatory,  which  had  grown  upon  its  hands  and 
was  about  ready  for  use,  came  up  for  consideration,  the  Navy  Depart- 
ment grew  to  distrust  the  idea  of  placing  a  naval  officer  in  charge.  It 
had  begun  to  suspect  that  an  observatory  is  an  institution  where  the 
duties  are  extremely  technical.  Moreover,  bills  for  the  establishment  of 
a  national  observatory,  had  been  offered  in  Congress  on  several  previous 
occasions,  and  now  when  the  new  depot  was  nearly  ready  for  occupancy 
another  bill  for  this  purpose  was  pending.  It  may  be  inferred  that  the 
few  practical  astronomers  of  the  country,  in  ignorance,  possibly,  of  the 
extent  to  which  the  Navy  would  be  able  to  develop  the  purposes  of  leg- 
islation, were  interesting  themselves  in  this  bill.  It  might  not  have 
been  difficult  to  suppose  there  was  some  chance  that  this  bill  would  pass. 
Nothing  would  then  have  been  more  natural  than  that  the  naval  authori- 
ties, wishing  the  credit  for  inaugurating  such  an  institution  to  inhere  in 
their  own  department,  should  have  thought  it  best  to  appoint  a  civilian 
as  chief  astronomer,  or  to  make  some  other  compromise.  It  appears 
that  Lieutenant  Maury,  who  was  then  in  charge  of  the  old  depot,  had 
become  aware  of  the  discussion  in  the  department,  and  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  course  things  were  taking.  In  a  letter,  of  Jan.  1,  1847,  ad- 
dressed to  his  intimate  friend,  William  Blackford,  Esq.,  of  Lynchburg, 
Virginia,  Lieutenant  Maury  wrote  : 

"  You  know  I  did  riot  want  the  place  [Superintendent]  and  only  de- 
cided to  keep  it  [he  had  been  in  charge  of  the  existing  depot]  when  I 
heard  it  had  been  promised  to  a  civilian,  under  a  plea  that  no  one  in  the 
Navy  was  fit  for  it.  I  then  went  to  Mason  [Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and 
like  Maury,  a  native  of  Virginia]  pronounced  that  the  repetition  of  a 
practical  libel,  and  told  him  he  must  stand  by  me.  He  did  so,  and 
though  I  had  never  seen  an  instrument  of  the  kind  before,  and  had  110 
one  with  me  who  had,  I  was  determined  to  ask  no  advice  or  instruction 
from  the  savans."  *  *  *  (Life  of  Matthew  Fontaine  Maury,  com- 
piled by  his  daughter,  Mrs.  D.  F.  M.  Corbiri,  London,  1888.) 

Mason  "  stood  by  "  Maury,  and  he  was  placed  in  charge  of  the  obser- 
vatory in  October,  1844.  Mr.  Sears  C.  Walker,  one  of  the  ablest  prac- 
tical astronomers  then  in  the  country,  became  his  assistant.  Professors 


14 

Coffin,  Hubbard  and  Keith  were  also  detailed  to  the  observatory  in  the 
year,  1845,  they  holding  commissions  in  the  Navy  as  Professors  of 
Mathematics.  Coffin  and  Hubbard  took  the  laboring  oars  in  the  obser- 
vations ;  Walker  and  Coffin  became  the  mainstays  in  the  computations, 
and  in  the  preparation  of  them  for  publication.  All  were,  however, 
comparatively  inexperienced. 

Lieutenant  Maury  was  a  man  of  good  abilities.  He  was  also  of  a 
restless  and  enterprising  spirit.  He  was  possessed  of  great  fertility  of 
invention  and  resource.  He  had  suffered  from  a  serious  accident,  which 
had  incapacitated  him  for  active  service  in  his  profession.  The  pos- 
sibility of  his  enforced  retirement  from  the  service,  hung  over  him  as  a 
standing  menace,  and  actually  threatened  in  1859.  The  problem  of 
future  employment,  commensurate  with  his  ambitious  energy  of  mind, 
was  one  that  occupied  his  thoughts  and  found  expression  in  communi- 
cations to  his  friends  during  this  period.  Had  the  tide  of  circumstances 
set  in  the  proper  direction,  and  had  not  law  and  immemorial  custom 
protected  certain  professional  employments  against  inexperience  far 
more  securely  than  astronomical  and  scientific  appointments  in  this 
country  have  ever  been  guarded,  it  is  easy  to  imagine  that  Lieutenant 
Maury  might  have  accepted  the  office  of  judge  in  a  higher  court,  or  of 
chief  surgeon  in  a  hospital,  with  the  same  intrepid  self-reliance,  which 
he  evinced  in  assuming  the  superintendence  of  the  United  States  Naval 
Observatory. 

To  prevent  this,  there  was  no  authoritative  voice  in  science,  no  recog- 
nized body  of  astronomers,  around  which  awakened  public  sentiment 
could  gather  for  leadership.  The  idea  of  a  Government  astronomical 
observatory  was,  therefore,  launched  on  a  sea  of  inexperience,  where  it 
long  drifted,  the  sport  of  the  winds  of  misconception  and  waves  of  pre- 
judice. By  the  merest  chance  it  was  seized  upon  as  derelict  by  the 
Navy  and  brought  to  a  strange  port.  There  it  was  libeled  without 
chance  for  a  hearing ;  and  there  it  has  remained  in  an  unseaworthy 
condition  ever  since. 

It  will  subsequently  appear  that  the  vague  astronomical  references  in 
Mr.  Mallory's  committee  report  (see  appended  Note  A)  must  Be  re- 
garded, from  the  naval  point  of  view,  as  not  only  authorizing  the  kind 
of  observations  which  formerly  occupied  the  Greenwich  Observatory— 
the  observation  of  sun,  moon,  planets,  and  principal  fixed  stars, — but 
also  much  more.  From  the  firsthand  throughout  its  history,  the  Naval 
Observatory  has  not  hesitated  to  undertake  any  sort  of  astronomical 
observations  permissible  to  its  equipment  and  men.  Such  have  been 
the  observations  of  telescopic  planets  (or  asteroids),  planetary  moons  (or 
satellites),  comets,  double  stars,  telescopic  stars,  and  nebulas,  though 
none  of  all  these  can  even  be  seen  by  the  mariner  at  sea — a  small  per- 
centage of  comets  excepted.  It  is  for  such  purposes  that  the  Observa- 
tory demands  these  large  appropriations  from  Congress 


15 

SECTION  III. — NAVAL  AND  MARINE  OBSERVATORIES  IN  OTHER  COUNTRIES. 

It  will  be  in  order  now  to  form  an  opinion  in  regard  to  the  actual  re- 
sults from  management  of  the  Naval  Observatory  by  naval  officers.  It 
would  scarcely  be  fair  to  hold  the  Navy  responsible  for  the  fulfilment  of 
the  prediction  by '  Mr.  Mallory,  that  an  observatory  administered  by 
military  methods  "would  accomplish  more  in  one  year,  than  under  any 
other  direction  in  two."  Yet  the  claim  of  naval  officers  of  the  Observa- 
tory, that  its  scientific  career  has  been  such  as  to  place  it  in  the  front 
rank  among  similar  institutions  of  the  world,  is  entitled  to  candid  and 
impartial  consideration. 

The  task  of  making  a  direct  comparison  of  the  work  of  our  Naval 
Observatory  with  that  of  other  national  institutions,  to  the  disadvantage 
of  the  former,  is  not  a  pleasant  one  for  any  right-minded  American 
astronomer.  But  it  must  be  undertaken. 

Officers  of  the  Navy  on  duty  at  the  Observatory,  in  their  efforts  to  per- 
petuate their  control  of  the  Naval  Observatory  against  the  attacks  of 
astronomers,  have  laid  much  stress  upon  the  naval  character  of  the 
establishment.  It  will  be  well,  therefore,  to  find  out  in  the  first  place, 
what  in  other  countries  is  practically  considered  an  observatory  suitable 
for  purely  marine,  or  naval  purposes.  This  can  be  done  in  a  very  brief 
space. 

There  are  a  number  of  so-called  "  Marine  observatories  "  at  various 
European  ports.  Among  these  are  the  observatories  at  Wilhelmshaven, 
Trieste,  Nicolaieff,  Odessa,  Bergen  and  Liverpool.  These  are  all  small 
affairs  employing  usually  two  or  three  persons  at  most.  They  are  all 
under  civilian  control,  and  are  very  little,  or  not  at  all  known  for  their 
contributions  to  the  science  of  astronomy.  Their  business  is  chiefly  the 
rating  of  chronometers,  testing  of  nautical  instruments,  arid  the  per- 
formance of  similar  duties.  There  is  also  what  is  termed  a  Seewarte  at 
Hamburg,  which  is  not  an  observatory  proper.  It  does  not  attempt 
astronomical  observations.  It  gives  great  attention  to  nautical  interests 
and  maintains  an  interesting  museum  of  nautical  appliances.  Its 
organization  and  direction  are  civilian. 

The  "  Imperial  Chronometric  Observatory''  at  Kiel,  Germany,  is  a 
naval  observatory  in  charge  of  a  naval  officer.  There  is  a  hydrographic 
office  and  naval  observatory  at  Pola,  Austria,  in  charge  of  a  naval  officer 
with  four  naval  officers  as  assistants.  There  is  a  small  observatory  con- 
nected with  the  hydrographic  office  at  Genoa,  Italy.  The  French  have 
small  naval  observatories  at  Brest,  Toulon,  Cherbourg  and  other  ports. 
These  are  merely  branches  of  the  hydrographic  office,  established  under 
lieutenants  of  the  navy,  to  distribute  charts,  rate  chronometers,  and  to 
perform  like  duties. 

As  astronomical  observatories  proper,  all  these  establishments  are 
virtually  unknown.  They  render  practical  service  to  their  navies,  and 
so  far  as  readily  accessible  published  records  show,  they  render  this  ser- 


16 

vice  with  the  aid  of  two  or  three  assistants  at  most,  and  with  an  equip- 
ment of  instruments  which  would  be  regarded  as  insignificant  in  rela- 
tion to  an  important  astronomical  observatory. 

Besides  these  there  is  a  naval  observatory  at  San  Fernando,  Spain,  in 
connection  with  the  naval  institute.  This  is  in  charge  of  a  naval  officer, 
and  there  is  a  large  staff  of  civilian  assistants.  The  Spanish  Nautical 
Almanac  is  published  from  this  establishment.  But  the  observatory  has 
no  record  as  an  astronomical  observatory.  The  Spanish  National  Observ- 
atory is  located  at  Madrid. 

There  is  a  national  observatory  at  Lisbon,  Portugal,  which  is  in 
charge  of  a  naval  officer,  with  a  very  modest  equipment  and  with  very 
few  assistants.  No  astronomical  observations  worth  mentioning  have 
ever  been  reported  from  this  observatory,  which  now  appears  to  be  prac- 
tically dead.  The  positions  of  assistants  are  reported  vacant. 

These  illustrations,  which  practically  cover  the  entire  practice  of  civi- 
lized nations  in  this  respect,  serve  at  least  to  show  that  with  immaterial 
exceptions,  it  has  not  been  thought  fit  to  entrust  to  naval  observatories  any 
functions  not  connected  with  the  strictly  practical  purposes  of  the  navy 
and  marine.  Astronomers  well  know  that  observations  made  for  the 
purpose  of  determining  the  places  of  sun,  moon,  planets  and  stars,  though 
they  may  be  rendered  useful  in  the  construction  of  improved  tables  for 
seamen,  are  primarily  intended  for  theoretical  uses,  or  for  astronomical 
almanacs  and  ephemerides.  The  necessity  for  the  accurate  observation 
of  star-places  in  practical  relations  arises  almost  wholly  from  the  needs 
of  earth  measurement  and  similar  operations  on  land.  In  every  case  the 
reaching  of  requisite  accuracy,  constitutes  these  observations  as  scien- 
tific work  of  a  high  order.  It  is  a  matter  demanding  an  order  of  pro- 
fessional training  and  experience  not  likely  to  be  acquired  by  those 
whose  duties  are  mainly  of  another  profession. 

Distinction  between  Marine  and  Astronomical  Observatories. 
It  is  necessary  to  keep  clearly  in  mind  this  distinction  between  an 
immediately  practical  marine  or  naval  observatory,  and  an  observatory 
for  purposes  of  astronomical  investigation.  It  is  for  the  interest  of  those 
who  wish  to  keep  the  observatory  under  control  of  line  officers  of  the 
Navy  to  render  this  distinction  as  nebulous  as  possible.  This  has  been 
one  important  source  of  their  success  in  the  continued  usurpation  of  the 
Government  observatory.  There  has  been  current  a  great  deal  of  mis- 
conception, and  possibly  some  humbug,  in  regard  to  this  matter, — mis- 
conception on  the  part  of  those  who  do  not  personally  understand  the 
technical  details,  and  humbug  on  the  part  of  those  who,  knowing  the 
facts,  aid  and  abet  such  misconception.  Officers  of  the  Naval  Observa- 
tory have  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  greater  part  of  its  work  is  of 
immediate  commercial  utility.  (See  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
for  1877,  p.  316 ;  and  elsewhere.)  Astronomy  of  immediate  practical 


17 

value  in  the  art  of  navigation,  embraces  such  operations  as  the  testing 
and  rating  of  chronometers,  furnishing  time  to  shipping  at  ports,  deter- 
minations of  longitude  on  the  seacoast,  and,  of  course,  the  rude 
observations  for  obtaining  a  ship's  position  at  sea.  These  do  not  consti- 
tute a  part  of  what  is  called  scientific  investigation,  unless  the  pre- 
cision attempted  is  much  greater  than  the  mariner  requires. 

Certain  observations  requiring  the  facilities  of  a  fixed  and  well  equip- 
ped observatory  are  useful  to  the  art  of  navigation.  But  so  far  as  the  navi- 
gator is  concerned,  nine-tenths  of  the  astronomical  observations  during 
the  past  half  century,  which  some  would  have  us  believe  are  exclusively 
for  the  benefit  of  navigation,  might  as  well  have  been  omitted.  The 
tables  of  the  moon  could  now  be  kept  up  to  the  required  standard  of 
accuracy  for  the  mariner,  if  observations  were  made  in  but  one  year  out 
of  ten  ;  the  sun  and  planets  need  to  be  observed  for  that  purpose,  not 
more  than  three  or  four  years  out  of  a  century;  the  stars  would  need 
such  attention  not  more  than  one  year  out  of  two  hundred.  It  is  indis- 
pensable, to  be  sure,  that  such  observations  should  be  made ;  but  to  make 
them  in  sufficient  quantity  for  the  needs  of  the  mariner  would  be  but  a 
small  matter  for  an  astronomer. 

As  to  what  arrangements  are  needed  for  an  observatory  of  the  prac- 
tical type,  the  most  competent  authority  which  our  Navy  has  produced, 
Lieutenant  G-illiss,  said : 

"  In  the  mere  store  rooms  for  the  charts  and  instruments,  or  depot,  as 
it  is  called,  I  feel  no  anxiety.  The  house  on  Capitol  Hill  would  have 
answered  quite  as  well  as  any  other,  and  a  three  and  a  half  feet  transit 
in  a  box  ten  feet  square,  would  have  served  to  obtain  the  time  for  the 
comparing  clock."  (Report  of  Lieutenant  Gilliss,  1845;  Senate  Doc., 
No.  114;  28th  Cong.,  2d  session.) 

If  the  Naval  Observatory  still  claims  to  be  a  practical  observatory  in  the 
sense  that  naval  observatories  elsewhere  are,  then  there  is  no  escape  from 
the  conclusion  that  its  management  has  been  outrageously  extravagant. 

SECTION    IV. — NATIONAL    ASTRONOMICAL   OBSERVATORIES  IN    OTHER 

COUNTRIES. 

As  will  hereafter  appear,  the  Naval  Observatory  is  actually  an  astro- 
nomical observatory  and  must  be  compared  with  national  astronomical 
observatories,  among  which  (and  especially  with  Greenwich)  its  superin- 
tendents, when  asking  for  large  appropriations,  have  always  desired  it 
to  be  classed  as  shown  repeatedly  in  their  reports. 

In  advocating  the  removal  of  the  observatory  to  a  new  site,  Admiral 
Rodgers,  Superintendent,  said : 

"The  observatories  of  Pulkowa,  Greenwich,  Washington,  etc.,  are 
placed  together  in  the  first  class.  *  *  *  It  will  be  seen  from  the 
foregoing  that  the  observatory  is  a  great  national  institution,"  etc. 
(Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1877,  p.  319.) 


18 

Commodore  Belknap,  Superintendent,  in  his  Annual  Report  for  1885r 
writes  : 

"  From  its  humble  beginning  in  1838  it  [the  Naval  Observatory]  has 
grown  to  be  one  of  the  most  important  astronomical  centers  in  the 
world." 

Other  quotations  of  similar  import  occur  elsewhere  in  this  Statement, 
and  still  others  may  easily  be  found  in  the  annual  reports  of  the  super- 
intendents. It  is  when  help  is  wanted  from  Congress  that  these  state- 
ments are  most  freely  made ;  the  "  practical "  theory  is  reserved  for 
defense  against  astronomers,  sfcice  the  inference  might  naturally  be 
supposed  to  follow  that  astronomers  can  present  no  legitimate  claim  to 
the  control  of  a  Naval  Observatory  proper. 

If  only  those  observatories  are  to  be  considered  which  employ  a  work- 
ing staff  nearly  equal  to  that  of  the  Naval  Observatory  this  comparison 
would  have  to  be  restricted  to  three  establishments.  But  the  comparison 
should  relate  to  quality  and  methods  as  well  as  to  mere  bulk. 

The  Imperial  Observatory  of  Russia,  at  Pulkowa. 

The  national  observatory  which  concededly  holds  the  primacy  among 
institutions  of  this  class  is  the  Imperial  Observatory  at  Pulkowa.  This 
observatory  was  established  in  1838,  and  is,  therefore,  but  slightly  older 
than  the  Naval  Observatory.  The  primary  purpose  of  the  Pulkowa  Ob- 
servatory has  been  to  increase  the  precision  of  our  knowledge  regarding 
the  positions  and  motions  of  the  principal  "fixed  stars"  and  the  astronom- 
ical constants  connected  with  this  field  of  work.  This  programme  includes 
meridian  observations  of  a  fundamental  character  and  high  precision 
upon  the  sun,  larger  planets,  and  stars  ;  micrometric  observations  of 
standard  quality  upon  the  principal  binary,  or  revolving  double  stars ; 
labors  in  the  interest  of  the  higher  forms  of  geodesy,  or  earth-measure- 
ment ;  and  a  variety  of  minor  operations,  too  great  for  enumeration  in 
this  place. 

The  star-observations  made  at  Pulkowa  enjoy  the  confidence  of 
astronomers  to  a  greater  extent  than  any  others.  They  have  become 
the  fundamental  basis  upon  which  rest  the  observations  in  the  great 
"zone"  undertaking,  which  has  been  successfully  carried  on  during  the 
last  twenty  years  through  the  cooperation  of  thirteen  university- 
observatories,  located  in  Germany,  Russia,  Sweden,  Norway,  Holland, 
England,  and  the  United  States.  This  project  has  for  its  object  the 
accurate  determination  of  the  place  of  every  star  in  the  sky  down  to 
those  which  are  no  more  than  one-sixteenth  as  bright  as  the  faintest 
visible  without  a  telescope.  It  has  been  frequently  characterized  as  the 
most  important  astronomical  undertaking  of  the  present  century  ;  and 
the  work  of  the  Russian  Imperial  Observatory  has  been  thus  far  adopted 
as  the  fundamental  basis  for  it.  The  star-places  of  the  astronomical 
almanac  (Berliner  Jahrbuch)  which  is  used  more  than  any  other  by 


19 

astronomers,  rest  upon  the  Pulkowa  basis  ;  so  that  in  numerous  obser- 
vatories, in  nearly  every  country,  an  important  class  of  astronomical 
measurements,  which  are  constantly  being  made,  take  the  standards 
established  at  Pulkowa  as  the  starting  point.  Even  the  star-places  of 
the  American  almanac,  one  of  the  best  astronomical  almanacs  in  the 
world,  in  one  of  the  coordinates  necessarily  depend  more  upon  the 
Pulkowa  observations  than  upon  those  of  the  Naval  Observatory.  It  is 
understood  that  the  United  States  Coast  Survey  in  its  longitude  work, 
which  is  not  anywhere  surpassed,  reduces  everything  to  the  Pulkowa 
standard,  concurring  in  the  practice  of  European  organizations  of  a 
similar  character,  though  the  Naval  Observatory  is  supposed  to  exist 
very  largely  for  the  very  purpose  of  furnishing  the  basis,  in  part  at 
least,  for  these  and  similar  operations  in  this  country. 

The  constants  of  atmospheric  refraction  have  been  determined  at 
Pulkowa  with  unexampled  refinement.  The  quantities  of  precession, 
nutation,  and  aberration, — constants  of  almost  daily  use  in  the  compu- 
tations at  astronomical  observatories, — have  been  determined  each  more 
than  once,  through  the  labors  of  the  Pulkowa  astronomers ;  and  the  re- 
sults deduced  there  are  now  employed  in  numberless  computations  by 
nearly  every  astronomer  in  the  world,  including  those  of  the  Naval 
Observatory.  They  are  also  extensively  used  in  the  calculations  of 
astronomical  almanacs. 

In  determining  the  distances  of  the  stars  (one  of  the  most  difficult 
operations  in  the  entire  range  of  science),  in  researches  of  precision 
upon  comets,  in  investigations  upon  the  planets  and  their  satellites,  in 
spectroscopic  researches  of  the  highest  precision,  and  in  a  multitude  of 
studies  in  various  lines,  the  work  of  the  Pulkowa  Observatory  is  ranked 
as  standard. 

There  has  never  been  any  material  interruption  in  the  scientific 
activity  of  this  famous  institution.  Every  year  offers  a  full  complement 
of  excellent  observations.  The  list  of  memoirs  and  shorter  contributions 
to  astronomy  presents  remarkable  evidence  of  the  great  variety  and  (to 
those  acquainted  with  them)  value  of  the  work  accomplished  at  the 
Pulkowa  Observatory.  From  1838  to  1888,  these  memoirs  and  papers 
number  389,  and  for  the  last  twenty-five  years  of  the  period,  230. 
(Jubilee  Celebration  of  the  Pulkowa  Observatory.)  The  subjoined  list 
illustrates  the  variety  of  topics  treated  : 

SUBJECTS.  NUMBER. 

Stellar  Astronomy 62 

Bodies  of  the  Solar  System 54 

Practical  Astronomy. 20 

Geodesy  and  Geodetic  Astronomy 20 

Astro-physics 22 

Mathematical  and  Miscellaneous ,  52 


20 

During  the  first  fifty  years  of  its  existence  (to  1888),  the  Pulkowa 
Observatory  was  under  the  superintendence  of  the  Struves,  father  and 
son,  who  are  reckoned  among  the  ablest  practical  astronomers  of  their 
times.  The  success  of  their  respective  administrations  is  attributed  in 
the  first  place,  to  their  unerring  judgment  as  to  the  particular  kind  and 
degree  of  scientific  capacity  of  the  assistants  employed  by  them  ;  in  the 
second  place,  to  the  wisdom  displayed  by  them  in  the  choice  of  work  to 
be  done ;  in  the  third  place,  to  the  stimulus  exercised  by  them  through 
personal  participation  in  the  astronomical  activities  of  the  institution 
under  their  charge ;  and  in  the  fourth  place,  to  the  rigorous  superin- 
tendence and  scrutiny  which  they  exercised  upon  all  the  publications  of 
the  observatory. 

.   The   observatory   is   subject  to   the  scientific  supervision  of  the  St. 
Petersburg  Academy  of  Sciences,  by  which  its  directors  are  nominated. 

The  annual  expenditure  in  1845  was  $33,588,  exclusive  of  payments 
to  members  of  the  Academy.  At  the  present  time  the  annual  ex- 
penditure is  probably  somewhat  larger, — the  amounts  are  not  stated  in 
the  reports  of  the  observatory. 

The  Pulkowa  Observatory  has  responded  vigorously  to  the  demands 
produced  by  the  remarkable  awakening  of  astronomical  interest  during 
the  past  decade  or  more. 

The  Royal  Observatory  at  Greenwich. 

The  Observatory  at  Greenwich  is  the  prototype  of  our  Naval  Obser- 
vatory, so  far  as  the  functions  of  either  have  been  expressly  or  indirectly 
defined.  Though  established  two  hundred  years  ago  expressly  for  per- 
fecting astronomical  tables  useful  in  the  art  of  navigation,  and  though 
always  subject  to  the  British  Admiralty,  the  Greenwich  Observatory  has 
always  been  placed  under  the  direction  of  civilian  astronomers,  aided 
exclusively  by  civilian  assistants.  The  warrant  of  the  Astronomer 
Royal,  from  Charles  II.  to  the  present  time,  has  directed  him  "  to 
apply  himself  with  the  utmost  care  and  diligence  to  the  rectifying  the 
tables  of  the  motions  of  the  heavens  and  the  places  of  the  fixed  stars,  in 
order  to  find  out  the  so  much  desired  longitude  at  sea  for  perfecting  the 
art  of  navigation."  Until  lately,  the  Greenwich  Observatory  has 
adhered  more  closely  to  this  programme  than  has  our  Naval  Observatory. 
Yet  civilian  astronomers  do  the  work,  and  superintend  it.  The  names 
of  Flamsteed,  Halley,*  Bradley,  Maskelyne,  Pond  and  Airy,  formerly 
directors  of  that  observatory,  are  among  the  most  distinguished  in  the 
annals  of  astronomy.  The  names  of  the  otherwise  distinguished  direc- 

*  Halley  was  given  a  pro  forma  commission  in  the  Navy  in  connection  with 
scientific  expeditions  to  the  southern  hemisphere.  As  fate  would  have  it,  however, 
none  of  the  few  observations  which  he  made  while  director  of  the  Greenwich 
Observatory,  were  considered  worth  publication,  though  the  record  is  preserved. 
He,  like  Flamsteed,  was  provided  neither  with  instruments  nor  assistants.  His 
fame  as  an  astronomer  is  due  to  his  theoretical  investigations. 


21 

tors  of  the  Naval  Observatory  are  unknown  in  astronomy,  with  two 
exceptions ;  and  none  of  them  has  achieved  a  distinguished  place  in 
that  science. 

The  Greenwich  observations  of  sun,  moon,  planets  and  stars  are  highly 
esteemed  by  astronomers  for  their  uniform  reliability.  Since  1750,  they 
form  a  continuous  series,  without  material  interruption  (except  during 
the  brief  administration  of  Bliss).  Since  1845,  when  our  Naval  Obser- 
vatory began  similar  observations  with  a  like  purpose  in  view,  the  out- 
put from  Greenwich  has  been  full  and  continuous  from  year  to  year. 

It  has  been  very  truly  remarked  by  high  authority  that  were  it 
necessary  to  reconstruct  the  lunar  and  planetary  tables  anew,  this  could 
be  done  from  the  Greenwich  observations  alone,  without  material  sacri- 
fice of  accuracy.  Since  1845,  six  important  general  catalogues  of  stars 
have  emanated  from  the  Greenwich  Observatory.  They  enjoy  a  high 
reputation  for  accuracy  and  general  excellence.  Many  other  important 
astronomical  researches  have  been  carried  on  at  the  Greenwich 
Observatory  during  the  period  under  consideration.  Among  these 
should  be  mentioned  the  series  of  spectroscopic  measurements  of  the 
motions  of  stars  toward  or  from  the  earth.  These  very  difficult  measures 
in  the  newest  field  of  astronomy,  have  been  continued  for  more  than  a 
decade,  with  extraordinary  tenacity  of  purpose.  Elsewhere,  no  regular 
work  of  this  kind  has  been  attempted  and  continued  for  any  great 
length  of  time. 

The  record  of  occultations  of  stars  by  the  moon,  and  of  the  phenomena 
of  planetary  satellites  is  full  and  continuous.  There  was  also  instituted 
at  Greenwich,  about  twenty  years  ago,  'a  series  of  physical  observations 
of  the  sun  to  determine  the  particulars  of  change  going  on  upon  its 
surface,  and  these,  with  the  necessary  calculations,  have  been  carried  on 
to  the  present  time  with  the  most  perfect  regularity  and  success,  every 
day  when  the  sun  has  been  visible. 

The  meteorological  record,  and  especially  the  observations  to  deter- 
mine the  elements  of  terrestrial  magnetism,  together  with  their  changes 
and  fluctuations,  form  at  Greenwich  one  of  the  largest  arid  most  valuable 
on  these  subjects  in  existence. 

The  directors  of  the  Greenwich  Observatory  have  also  been  dis- 
tinguished for  the  influence  which  they  have  exerted  not  only  in  the 
observatory,  but  also  upon  the  general  progress  of  astronomy.  They 
have  been  foremost  in  the  counsels  of  English  astronomy. 

One  reason  for  the  success  of  their  superintendence  has  been  due  to 
the  clearness  and  steadfastness  with  which  they  have  recognized  the 
line  of  work  which  could  most  advantageously  be  prosecuted  by  the 
Greenwich  Observatory,  and  the  inexorable  perseverance  with  which 
they  have  held  the  observatory  to  its  chosen  work.  The  principal 
feature  of  that  work  in  the  past,  has  been  one  in  which  one  or  two  large 


22 

observatories  could  find  constant  employment  to  the  high  advantage  of 
science.  Another  reason  for  this  success  resides  in  the  close  attention 
which  the  superintendent  of  the  Greenwich  Observatory  has  always 
given,  even  for  the  smallest  details  in  the  organization  of  work,  to  the 
observations,  and  especially  to  the  computations,  as  well  as  to  publica- 
tion. Sir  George  B.  Airy,  late  Astronomer  Royal,  says : 

"  In  every  transaction  in  or  originating  in  the  observatory,  without 
any  exception,  the  Astronomer  Royal  alone  is  responsible  to  the  Govern- 
ment. Even  in  the  case  of  his  absence  on  leave  granted  by  the 
Admiralty,  it  is  his  duty  so  to  direct  the  chief  assistant  by  written 
instructions  that  as  little  ^as  possible  may  be  left  to  his  discretion." 
(Par.  8,  "Regulations";  Greenwich  Observations  for  1873,  Appendix.) 

The  current  annual  expenditure,  until  recent  years,  was  about 
$30,000.  (Greenw.  Obs.,  1873.)  More  recently  this  has  increased  to 
about  $42,000,  and  this  amount  will,  in  all  probability,  be  materially 
increased  in  the  future.  In  spite  of  the  extremely  conservative  traditions 
of  this  observatory,  it  has  fully  recognized  the  rapidly  expanding  claims 
of  modern  astronomy  by  greatly  enlarging  its  sphere  of  work.  It  is  one 
of  the  most  progressive  institutions  in  the  world  in  that  respect. 

The  Astronomer  Royal  reports  to  a  "  Board  of  Visitors,"  composed  of 
members  of  the  Royal  Society,  of  certain  astronomers,  and  of  persons 
appointed  by  the  Admiralty  office. 

Observatory  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope. 

The  Royal  Observatory  at  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope  is  in  many  respects 
similar  to  that  of  Greenwich.  In  spite  of  its  colonial  and  isolated 
position,  the  special  obligation  of  an  observatory  located  in  the  southern 
hemisphere  has  not  been  neglected.  The  results  achieved  by  it  are  of 
indispensable  importance.  In  earlier  years,  the  personnel  of  this 
observatory  was  very  small.  It  was  largely  employed  upon  geodetic  (or 
high  surveying)  work  in  South  Africa.  In  recent  years,  the  annual 
expenditure  has  been  about  $30,000  (something  like  half  that  for  the 
Naval  Observatory),  and  accordingly  the  astronomical  output  has  been 
vastly  increased. 

Since  the  founding  of  the  Naval  Observatory,  three  important  general 
catalogues  of  stars  have  issued  from  the  Cape  Observatory,  and  another 
is  in  course  of  preparation.  There  is  a  good  complement  of  observa- 
tions upon  the  bodies  of  the  solar  system.  During  the  last  ten  or  twelve 
years  there  have  been  made  at  this  observatory  numerous  determina- 
tions of  the  distances  of  stars  from  the  earth,  and  there  has  been  very 
remarkable  activity  in  the  determination  of  the  distances  of  small 
planets  to  ascertain  the  sun's  parallax.  These  observations  are  of  the 
highest  class. 

Important  experiments  in  astronomical  photography  have  been  car- 
ried on  with  success ;  a  photographic  survey  of  the  entire  southern  sky, 


23 

promising  results  of  the  highest  value,  has  been  completed,  and  the 
results  will  shortly  be  ready  for  publication  ;  observations  for  longitude, 
and  for  places  of  comets,  with  a '  variety  of  other  investigations,  have 
also  been  made. 

The  directors  of  this  observatory  have  been  eminent  astronomers ; 
and  their  success  has  been  largely  due  to  the  enthusiasm  engendered 
among  assistants  by  the  personal  participation  of  their  chiefs  in  the 
observations  and  calculations  of  the  observatory.  In  the  prefatory 
remarks  to  the  well-known  Cape  Catalogue  of  Stars  for  1880,  Mr.  Stone, 
at  that  time  director  of  the  observatory  at  the  Cape,  says : 

"  Besides  the  general  organization  arid  arrangement  of  the  work,  and 
the  making  in  each  year,  sufficient  observations  to  check  the  instru- 
mental adjustments  and  the  general  working  of  the  transit  circle,  I  have 
made  it  a  rule  to  throw  my  personal  weight  upon  any  part  of  the  work 
which,  from  time  to  time,  appeared  to  flag.  I  have  thus  taken  a  direct 
share  in  the  work  to  an  extent  which  appears  somewhat  unusual  on  the 
part  of  directors  of  large  observatories.  *  *  *  I  have  spared  no 
personal  labor  to  make  the  work  accurate." 

These  principles  are  exemplified  in  the  practice  of  the  present 
Astronomer  Royal  at  the  Cape  to  a  remarkable  extent.  It  is  in  no 
small  measure  due  to  his  personal  efforts  that  the  courage  of  observers 
in  attacking  the  more  severe  measurements  of  astronomy  has  been 
revived. 

The  National  Observatory  at  Paris. 

The  National  Observatory  at  Paris  is  one  of  the  most  extensively 
equipped  in  the  world,  both  as  to  instruments  and  personnel.  Its  field 
of  operations  has  been  more  varied  and  miscellaneous  than  is  usually 
the  case  with  large  observatories.  Its  attention  has  been  largely  given, 
however,  to  the  observation  of  sun,  moon,  planets,  and  telescopic  stars. 
During  the  directorship  of  the  celebrated  LeVerrier,  a  great  part  of  its 
resources  was  also  given  up  to  mathematical  work,  and  chiefly  to 
the  colossal  task  of  computing  tables  for  all  the  great  planets.  His 
administration,  owing  to  his  introduction  of  "  military  methods," 
has  been  severely,  and  perhaps  justly,  criticised  by  his  assistants; 
though  he  was  one  of  the  most  distinguished  and  best  known  as- 
tronomers of  the  present  century.  Considering  this  instance  to  have 
weight,  as  militating  against  the  desirability  of  having  an  astronomer 
to  manage  scientific  work,  it  must  still  be  remembered  that  this  case  is 
entirely  isolated,  so  far  as  the  large  national  observatories  are  concerned. 

The  work  of  constructing  an  extensive  catalogue  of  the  brighter  tele- 
scopic stars  constitutes  a  very  important  contribution  of  the  Paris 
Observatory.  The  most  extensive  charts  of  the  fainter  telescopic  stars 
have  also  been  made  at  that  observatory.  Much  attention  has  also  been 
given  to  the  invention  of  new  forms  of  astronomical  instruments  and  of 
new  methods  in  the  use  of  instruments. 


24 

In  the  course  of  labors  for  mapping  the  faint  telescopic  stars,  the  idea 
of  charting  them  with  a  much  higher  degree  of  accuracy  by  photography 
was  conceived  and  practically  perfected  at  this  observatory.  A  plan 
for  charting  the  entire  heavens  in  this  way  has  been  initiated,  and  its 
practical  organization  has  been  successfully  completed  under  the  leader- 
ship of  the  Paris  Observatory.  The  cooperation  of  nearly  every  one  of 
the  leading  governments,  except  our  own,  has  been  assured.  The  pre- 
liminary work  is  in  progress. 

The  present  director  of  the  observatory,  Admiral  Mouchez,  is  an 
officer  of  the  navy,  many  years  ago  detached  for  this  duty.  He  is  a 
member  of  the  French  Academy  of  Sciences,  and  reports  to  a  council 
which  is  under  the  presidency  of  M.  Faye,  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
astronomers  of  France.  The  organization  of  the  observatory  is  in  no 
sense  naval,  nor  are  its  methods.  The  vice-director  is  a  civilian  astron- 
omer, as  at  Pulkowa,  and  so  are  all  the  assistants.  The  appointment  of 
a  naval  officer  to  the  chief  direction  is  entirely  exceptional. 

In  recent  times,  the  French  government  has  supported,  in  part,  a 
number  of  astronomical  observatories  in  various  parts  of  France.  These 
are  all  under  civilian  direction,  and  bid  fair  to  raise  the  astronomical 
reputation  of  France  to  the  first  rank. 

Observatories  Supported  by  the  Gferman  Government. 

The  policy  of  Germany  has  not  led  to  the  establishment  of  any  one  great 
national  observatory,  but  to  the  division  of  its  patronage  among  many. 
Each  of  the  leading  states  has  its  observatory,  on  a  comparatively  small 
scale.  The  principal  of  these  is  the  Royal  Observatory  of  Prussia  at 
Berlin,  best  known  through  the  labors  of  Encke,  one  of  its  distinguished 
directors.  The  observatory  proper  is  a  small  establishment  employing 
only  three  or  four  assistants ;  but  it  is  closely  connected  in  an  adminis- 
trative way,  with  the  Astronomical  Almanac  office,  or  computing  bureau, 
the  new  physical  observatory  at  Potsdam,  and  other  scientific  interests 
cared  for  by  government.  The  services  of  the  director  are  in  constant 
requisition  by  his  government  in  a  great  variety  of  scientific  employ- 
ments. 

The  observatory  itself  is  mainly  devoted  to  the  precise  observation  of 
small  planets  and  telescopic  stars.  In  combination  with  the  Astronomi- 
cal Almanac  office,  it  has  become  the  head-quarters  in  relation  to  the 
astronomy  of  the  small  planets.  From  1825  to  1865  this  observatory 
was  under  the  direction  of  the  renowned  astronomer  Johann  Friedrich 
Encke.  The  present  incumbent,  a  pupil  and  active  assistant  of  Encke 
for  many  years,  succeeded  to  the  direction  in  1865.  During  the  period 
since  that  time,  the  Naval  Observatory  has  had  nine  different  superin- 
tendents,—six  of  them  since  1882.  It  is  thus  easy  to  understand  why 
the  work  of  the  Berlin  Observatory,  should  have  been  organized  on  a 
more  consistent  and  permanent  plan,  and  why  that  plan  should  have 


25 

been  more  effectively  executed  than  has  been  the  case  with  the  Wash- 
ington Observatory. 

The  astro-physical  observatory  at  Potsdam,  though  less  than  twenty 
years  old  and  though  it  employs  but  a  small  staff  of  assistants,  has 
already  become  authority  in  standard  measurements  involving  the  use 
of  the  spectroscope  and  photographic  processes.  Its  recent  work  upon 
the  motion  of  stars  in  the  line  of  sight,  towards  or  from  the  earth,  is  of 
a  highly  original  character.  It  is  the  most  valuable  that  has  been  done. 
Already,  most  interesting  discoveries  have  originated  in  that  work. 

As  previously  stated,  there  are  a  large  number  of  university-observa- 
tories in  the  various  states  of  Germany,  which  are  organized  on  a  modest 
scale  and  derive  their  support  from  government.  Some  of  these,  like 
that  of  Konigsberg  in  the  period  from  1812  to  1849,  have  fulfilled  in  a 
great  measure  the  functions  of  a  national  observatory.  The  example  of 
the  Konigsberg  Observatory  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  relation 
which  skilled  direction  of  an  observatory  bears  to  the  value  as  well  as  to 
the  amount  of  its  product.  Its  director  during  the  period  mentioned 
was  Bessel,  generally  accounted  the  ablest  observing  astronomer  of  the 
century.  Though  he  had  but  two  or  three  assistants,  the  amount  and 
value  of  the  astronomical  work  produced  at  that  observatory  was  scarcely 
equaled  by  that  of  any  other  observatory  in  the  world.  Such  is  the 
experience  of  all  observatories,  large  and  small, — the  abler  the  director, 
in  the  astronomical  sense,  the  more  and  better  the  work, — no  matter 
what  the  ability  of  assistants  may  be. 

The  splendid  new  observatory  at  Strasburg  and  the  famous  observa- 
tory at  Bonn,  established  in  the  Prussian  dominions ;  the  observatory  at 
Leipsic  in  Saxony  ;  and  the  Royal  Observatory  of  Bavaria  near  Munich, 
as  well  as  others  of  a  similar  character,  furnish  valuable  illustrations  of 
the  great  value  of  skilled  astronomical  direction  for  such  institutions. 

Various  National  Observatories.       ^ 

The  Austrian  government  supports  a  national  observatory,  splendidly 
housed  and  equipped,  which,  however,  employs  but  a  small  personnel, 
that  is  chiefly  engaged  in  observations  and  calculations  upon  comets  and 
small  planets.  At  present,  a  large  proportion  of  the  new  asteroids  an- 
nounced are  discovered  here.  Its  large  output  of  results  has  been  con- 
centrated upon  definite  objects,  pursued  with  fidelity,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  distinguished  astronomers,  through  many  succeeding  years. 

Holland  has  a  quasi-national  observatory  at  Leyden,  with  a  modest 
but  efficient  equipment,  where  four  or  five  astronomers,  all  told,  are 
employed.  Since  it  has  been  raised  to  its  present  rank  (in  1858)  its  con- 
tributions to  astronomy,  under  highly  competent  practical  astronomers, 
have  been  of  fundamental  importance,  particularly  in  the  direction  of 
star-observations. 

Belgium  has  a  national  observatory  with  a  limited  number  of  assistants. 


26 

Its  work  has  been  about  equally  divided  between  star-observations  and 
researches  in  climatology.  Its  directors  have  been  among  the  ablest 
astronomers  of  Belgium.  A  national  observatory  of  considerable  im- 
portance is  located  at  the  capital  of  Brazil ;  and  there  are  also  small 
observatories  under  state  patronage  in  nearly  every  capital  city  of  the 
world,  in  addition  to  those  already  mentioned,  all  under  the  direction  of 
practical  astronomers,  imported,  sometimes,  in  default  of  suitable 
material  at  home. 

The  Argentin^  National  Observatory,  at  Cordoba. 

There  is  a  national  observatory  which  will  have  a  special  interest  and 
pertinence  in  this  comparison  of  observatories  with  that  of  Washington. 
At  Cordoba  the  national  observatory  of  the  Argentine  Republic  was 
established  in  1870  under  'the  superintendence  of  Dr.  B.  A.  Gould,  an 
American  astronomer.  The  labors  of  this  observatory  have  been  mainly 
directed  to  observation  of  the  fixed-stars.  During  thirteen  years,  from 
1871  to  1884,  the  average  annual  expenditure  for  this  observatory  was 
$20,963,  or  less  in  American  currency.  In  this  period,  from  1871  to 
1884,  in  addition  to  observations  of  comets  and  a  large  amount  of  pioneer 
work  in  celestial  photography,  the  star-observations  there  made  and  de- 
duced constitute  in  extent  and  value  by  far  the  largest  contribution  in 
this  respect  ever  made  by  any  one  observatory  in  alike  space  of  time.  So 
far  as  star-observations  are  concerned,  what  the  Cordoba  Observatory 
achieved  in  thirteen  years  exceeds  by  far,  both  in  quantity  and  value, 
the  total  output  of  our  Naval  Observatory  during  the  forty-seven  years 
of  its  existence. 

The  history  of  this  observatory  is  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the 
value  of  skilled  direction  in  astronomical  work.  The  assistants,  in 
nearly  every  case,  when  they  arrived  at  Cordoba  from  the  United  States, 
were  without  practical  experience  in  astronomical  work,  and  were 
trained  in  their  Duties  at  the  observatory  where  they  were  employed. 
Yet,  with  immaterial  exceptions,  the  observations  by  all  the  observers 
are  of  uniformly  good  quality,  and  the  computations  are  a  model  of 
thoroughness  and  accuracy.  There  is  remarkably  little  evidence  of 
wasted  labor.  All  the  work  seems  to  have  counted  in  the  attainment 
of  a  definite  purpose.  It  is  seldom  in  any  observatory  that  assistants 
have  labored  with  more  zealous  energy  ihan  has  been  manifested  at  the 
Cordoba  Observatory.  The  director  himself  participated  personally  in 
the  observations,  and  in  the  most  important  features  of  the  calculations, 
and  he  maintained  a  constant  and  critical  watch  upon  them  throughout. 
It  may  safely  be  inferred  that  it  was  this  practice  which  stimulated  the 
assistants  to  such  unusual  energy.  The  thorough  manner  in  which  all 
parts  of  the  work  were  coordinated  into  one  homogeneous  whole,  was 
accomplished  through  close  and  practical  supervision  by  the  director  in 
person. 


27 

With  reduced  means  (nominally,  not  less),  since  1885,  under  the 
superintendence  or  another  American  astronomer,  Dr.  J.  M.  Thome,  the 
Argentine  National  Observatory  is  continuing  its  astronomical  career 
with  great  credit  to  those  who  perform  its  labors,  and  to  the  government 
which  sustains  them. 


SECTION  V. —  THE  SCIENTIFIC  RECORD  OP  THE  UNITED  STATES  NAVAL 

OBSERVATORY. 

It  will  now  be  in  order  to  examine  the  astronomical  record  of  the 
United  States  Naval  Observatory  in  the  light  of  the  standards  which 
have  been  thus  established.  The  significance  of  these  standards  will 
more  fully  appear  in  the  course  of  the  actual  comparison. 

The  first  Superintendent  of  the  Naval  Observatory,  Lieut.  Matthew 
Fontaine  Maury,  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  October  1,  1844. 
In  1845  the  astronomical  work  was  begun,  with  four  astronomical 
assistants  and  eleven  naval  officers.  The  astronomical  work  of  the 
astronomers  was  as  good,  during  the  first  three  or  four  years,  as  could 
fairly  have  been  expected  in  a  country  where  practical  astronomy  was 
in  its  infancy,  and  at  an  institution,  the  chief  of  which  boasted  that  he 
knew  nothing  of  the  operations  he  was  expected  to  direct,  arid  "had 
never  seen  an  [astronomical]  instrument  of  the  kind  before."  The 
observations  were  promptly  published  at  first,  but  "publication  soon 
began  to  fall  in  arrears.  The  observations  of  1848  were  published  only 
in  part  in  1856 ;  those  of  1849-50,  in  1859 ;  and  those  of  1851-2,  not 
until  1867. 

It  is  generally  conceded  that  the  observations  of  the  sun,  moon, 
planets  and  stars  in  1851-2  have  little  or  no  value  ;  they  have  been 
purposely  excluded  in  investigations  where  they  would  have  been  very 
useful  had  they  been  of  the  requisite  accuracy. 

During  the  years  1853  to  1860,  inclusive,  no  annual  report  of  the 
astronomical  observations  has  ever  appeared,  because  very  few  observa- 
tions of  any  value  were  made.  However,  the  work  done  by  civilian 
assistant  Ferguson  with  the  equatorial  telescope  upon  comets  and  minor 
planets  was  of  good  quality  arid  sufficiently  continuous.  These  obser- 
vations were  published  from  time  to  time  in  journals  of  astronomy. 
Another  exception  should  be  made  in  respect  to  observations  of  stars 
made  by  Professor  Yarnall  in  this  period.  These  are  creditable,  and 
were  collected  in  a  small  volume  in  1872. 

Two  great  works  had  been  proposed  at  or  near  the  inauguration  of 
astronomical  work  at  the  Observatory.  The  first  was  observation  of  the 
brighter  stars  and  of  the  principal  bodies  of  the  solar  system  with  a 
view  to  providing  data  for  the  construction  of  a  Nautical  Almanac  in  a 
thoroughly  "  American  "  sense.  The  second  work  proposed  was  the 
observation  in  zones  of  all  the  stars  south  of  the  celestial  equator  (and 


north,  for  that  matter),  that  could  be  seen  with  the  meridian  instruments 
of  the  Observatory. 

In  regard  to  the  first  proposition,  the  design  is  fully  and  repeatedly 
expressed  in  the  records  of  the  Navy  department.  Two  quotations  will 
suffice.  In  his  annual  report,  dated  November  25,  1844,  Hon.  John  Y. 
Mason,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  says  : 

"  The  instruments  purchased  have  been  received  and  placed  in  the 
depot.  They  are  well  selected,  and  may  be  advantageously  employed 
in  the  necessary  observations,  with  a  view  to  calculate  nautical  almanacs. 
For  these  we  are  now  iiictebted  to  foreign  nations.  This  work  may  be 
done  by  our  own  naval  officers  without  injury  to  the  service,  and  at  very 
small  expense." 

In  his  report  of  October  20,  1845,  Superintendent  Maury  says : 

"  Without  the  English  Nautical  Almanac,  or  the  nautical  ephemeris 
of  some  other  European  nation,  our  vessels  which  are  now  abroad  might 
not  find  their  way  home.  This  office  [depot  or  Naval  Observatory] 
affords  the  means  of  wiping  off  so  much  of  the  reproach  as  is  due  to  us 
as  a  nation  on  this  account,  for,  with  the  means  already  at  hand,  nearly 
all  the  requisite  data  for  a  nautical  ephemeris  of  our  own  are  obtainable. 
With  a  view  of  obtaining  the  requisite  data  for  this  purpose,  a  series  of 
observations  for  the  preliminary  determinations  has  been  undertaken, 
and  is  now  in  progress.  If  we  attempt  to  compute  the  l  American 
Nautical  Almanac '  —  and  this  we  can  do  at  no  greater  expense  than  we 
pay  the  Englishjor  computing  theirs  for  us  —  from  our  own  data,  it  is 
highly  desirable  that  the  data  should  be  wholly  American." 

"  If  we  borrow  one  element  of  the  work  from  foreign  observations,  it 
would  be  more  creditable  to  borrow  the  whole,"  *  *  *  etc.  (Papers 
accompanying  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1845.) 

Leaving  aside  consideration  of  the  cautious  and  skillful  progress  from 
a  "  depot,"  toward  a  full  fledged  observatory,  which  is  manifest  in  these 
extracts,  and  overlooking  the  impracticability  of  the  plan  suggested  by 
Lieutenant  Maury,  it  may  be  conceded  that  the  observatory  began  in 
the  path  most  appropriate  to  it.  It  is  sufficient  commentary  to  remark 
that  the  observatory  pursued  the  practicable  part  of  this  programme  in 
a  manner  for  four  or  five  years ;  with  evidence  of  fatigue  for  two  or 
three  years  longer,  and  then,  apparently  tired  of  it,  abandoned  it 
altogether,  until  the  revival  of  the  observatory  in  1861.  It  would  be 
exceedingly  difficult  to  find  in  the  pages  of  the  American  Nautical 
Almanac  any  evidence  that  the  observations  of  the  Naval  Observatory 
have  been  considered  of  more  value  than  those  of  other  observatories  in 
its  preparation. 

In  reference  to  the  second  project — the  observation  of  faint  stars  south 
of  the  celestial  equator — it  must  be  said  that  while  such  work  is  purely 
astronomical,  and  not  by  any  stretch  of  the  imagination  germane  to 
nautical  or  naval  needs,  its  creditable  performance  would  have  done 
very  much  to  establish  the  astronomical  reputation  of  the  Naval  Obser- 
vatory and  to  justify  the  expenditures  which  had  been  made  for  it. 


29 

These  observations  Were  begun  in  1846,  under  authority"  of  an  order 
from  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  March  6,  184(5.  The  first  Superin- 
tendent was  loyal  to  the  design  of  accumulating  executive  precedents 
for  future  reference  in  case  the  right  to  do  purely  scientific  work  should 
be  thereafter  impugned.  In  this  order  Secretary  Bancroft  said : 

"  %  *  *  I  approve  your  course  in  making  the  series  of  astronomi- 
cal observations,  more  immediately  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  a 
Nautical  Almanac. 

"The  country  expects,  also,  that  the  observatory  will  make  adequate 
contributions  to  Astronomical  Science,"  etc.  (Washington  Observations, 
Vol.  I.,  for  1845;  Appendix,  p.  38.) 

The  observations  in  pursuance  of  this  order  were  continued  for  several 
years  by  a  large  force  of  observers,  rarely  less  than  six ;  but  their 
termination  is  enveloped  in  obscurity.  In  fact,  the  plan  was  abandoned. 
The  first  publication  of  a  part  of  the  observations,  made  in  1846, 
occurred  in  1860.  The  remaining  observations,  1846-49,  were  published 
in  1869  and  1871,  twenty  years  after  the  latest  of  them  was  made  ;  and 
then  only  in  the  preliminary  form,  precedent  to  the  formation  of  a  cata- 
logue for  practical  use.  This  catalogue  has  not  yet  made  its  appearance. 

Commenting  on  this  work  in  the  North  American  Review  (Vol.  105), 
in  1867,  Professor  Newcomb,  then  on  duty  at  the  Naval  Observatory, 
says:  "So  the  entire  plan  ended  in  ignominious  failure."  Professor 
Asaph  Hall,  U.  S.  N.,  under  whose  editorship  the  published  volumes  of 
these  observations  were  issued,  in  the  introduction  to  the  final  volume, 
says : 

"On  account  of  the  inexperience  of  some  of  the  observers  and  the 
lack  of  good  organization  these  observations  contain  many  errors,  and 
the  whole  work  needs  a  careful  revision."  (Washington  Observations 
for  1871,  Appendix  I,  p.  VI.) 

There  is  no  manner  of  doubt  that  the  observations  are  of  inferior 
merit.  They  are  rarely  used  where  other  observations  of  the  same 
stars  are  to  be  had,  and  by  some  astronomers  not  at  all. 

The  failure  of  these  observations  was  not  altogether  the  fault  of  the 
assistants.  The  plan  of  observations  was  a  bad  one,  such  as  no  ex- 
perienced astronomer  would  have  sanctioned.  For  this  plan  the  Super- 
intendent was  necessarily  responsible. 

In-  the  years  from  1849  to  1851  a  large  part  of  the  region  of  sky 
covered  by  this  programme  was  far  more  completely  attended  to  by 
Professor  F.  W.  Argelander,  Director  of  the  Bonn  Observatory.  Argel- 
ander made  all  the  observations  in  person,  and  with  very  little  assist- 
ance otherwise.  However  humiliating  to  our  national  pride  it  may  be, 
it  must  be  acknowledged  that  these  observations  by  Argelander,  in  so 
short  a  time  and  with  so  little  help,  are  superior  to  those  made  at  the 
Naval  Observatory  in  the  same  region  at  nearly  the  same  time.  The 
Naval  Observatory  had  also  the  very  marked  advantage  of  a  latitude 
twelve  degrees  farther  south.  These  observations  by  Argelander,  which 


30 

form   a   mere   episode  in  his  career,  first  appeared  in  catalogue  form 
more  than  thirty  years  ago. 

Whenever  a  comet,  or  one  of  the  minor  planets,  has  appeared  in  that 
region  of  sky,  even  the  observers  of  the  Naval  Observatory  are  accus- 
tomed to  use  these  star-observations  by  Argelander,  as  the  basis  of  their 
computations,  rather  than  observations  of  identically  the  same  stars, 
made  at  nearly  the  same  time,  from  beneath  their  own  roof,  and  pub- 
lished at  large  expense  by  their  own  Government.  This  finds  an  illus- 
tration, among  many  others,  in  the  Washington  Observations  for  1884. 
That  volume  contains  a  large  number  of  observations  of  comets  and 
small  planets,  made  by  locating,  from  night  to  night,  their  positions 
upon  the  face  of  the  sky  in  relation  to  the  stars  near  them.  In  22  cases 
the  position  of  the  star  has  been  quoted  from  Argelander, — from  the 
Washington  Observations  in  question,  riot  once  ;  though  it  was  possible 
to  have  done  so  in  a  number  of  cases.  These  observations  of  planets 
were  made  by  Commander  Sampson,  who  certainly  will  not  be  accused 
of  a  desire  to  overlook  the  merits  of  the  work  done  by  the  Naval 
Observatory. 

This  practically  comprises  the  astronomical  history  of  the  Naval 
Observatory  down  to  1861.  It  is  true  that  during  the  ten  years  pre- 
ceding that  date,  Superintendent  Maury  carried  on  an  important  in- 
vestigation upon  the  winds  and  currents  of  the  ocean.  But  this  is  no 
part  of  the  work  of  an  observatory.  For  this  purpose,  the  costly  in- 
struments were  of  no  use  whatever.  Nor  was  it  necessary  to  have  a 
force  of  civilian  astronomical  assistants  to  aid  him  in  this  work.  This 
was,  indeed,  practical  nautical  work  germane  to  a  "  depot  of  charts," 
or  a  "  Hydrographical  office,"  into  which  the  Naval  Observatory  had 
become  partially  reconverted.  At  any  rate  the  Naval  Observatory 
during  that  period  was  no  longer  fulfilling  the  mission  which  the  Navy 
itself  had  chosen  and  proclaimed  to  the  world  as  its  vocation.  Congress 
and  the  people  have  no  guaranty  that  the  management  of  the  Naval 
Observatory  may  not  at  any  time,  when  the  fancy  seizes  it,  take  up  some 
other  line  of  work  and  abandon  astronomy  as  it  did  once  before.  There 
is  no  law  in  the  way,  and  precedent  is  in  favor  of  it. 

Revival  of  Astronomical  Activity  at  the  Naval  Observatory  in  1861. 

In  1861,  after  the  appointment  of  Captain  Grilliss  to  the  superinten- 
dency  of  the  Naval  Observatory,  it  resumed  its  character  as  an  astro- 
nomical institution,  though  it  was  still  charged  with  the  custody 
of  charts  until  1866.  After  the  latter  date  its  duties  became  quite 
as  purely  astronomical  as  are  those  of  the  great  national  obser- 
vatories in  other  lands.  Captain  Grilliss,  though  not  a  thoroughly 
trained  astronomer,  was  probably  more  competent  for  his  post  than  any 
other  superintendent  the  Observatory  has  ever  had.  As  an  astronomer 


31 

he  was  self-taught.  In  his  personal  work  in  astronomy  he  has  not  left 
any  very  effectual  mark  on  the  progress  of  investigation ;  yet  the 
same  may  be  said  of  many  professional  astronomers  who  have  enjoyed 
a  respectable  rank.  Captain  Gilliss  had  the  temperament  of  an  astron- 
omer. He  was  earnest  and  zealous  for  astronomical  progress  and 
appreciated  its  importance.  He  displayed  good  judgment  in  gathering 
about  him  a  corps  of  young  assistants  of  rare  scientific  promise,  some  of 
whom  have  since  demonstrated  the  wisdom  of  his  choice  in  a  remark- 
able degree. 

In  spite  of  the  troubled  times,  the  Naval  Observatory  now  entered 
upon  a  career  of  astronomical  activity  which  was  comparatively  cred- 
itable. Observations  of  the  principal  stars  and  of  bodies  of  the  solar 
system  were  resumed  and  have  been  carried  on  with  unimportant 
interruptions  ever  since.  At  first  the  old  instruments  were  used. 
These  were  already  antiquated  when  they  were  set  up  in 
1844.  Later,  a  new  instrument  (Transit  Circle)  was  provided  for 
these  observations.  Yet  the  new  instrument  has  not  seemed  to 
furnish  results  equal  in  value  to  those  obtained  with  the  old  instru- 
ments. Writing  in  1867  of  the  observations  made  by  the  aid  of  this 
new  instrument,  the  professor  in  charge  of  it  says:  "  Some  partial 
publications  of  its  asteroid  observations  have  appeared  in  the  Astronom- 
ische  Nachrichten,  and  these  show  much  better  for  the  optical  power  of 
the  instrument  than  for  its  precision*"  (N.  A.  Rev.,  Vol.  105.)  The  same 
writer,  Professor  Newcomb,  summing  up  the  work  of  the  observatory 
up  to  that  time  (1867),  in  this  same  article  says  : 

"Our  judgment  of  the  past  work  of  the  Naval  Observatory  may  be 
summed  up  thus.  That  of  the  first  four  years,  and  of  the  last  four  years, 
so  far  as  published,  is  highly  creditable  to  the  country,  and  to  the 
Navy,  all  things  considered.  Among  the  things  to  be  taken  into 
account  are  the  want  of  educated  astronomers  in  the  beginning  and  the 
inferior  character  of  many  of  the  instruments  throughout  the  history  of 
the  observatory.  During  the  intervening  years  [12  years]  the  opera- 
tions are  creditable  to  no  one  but  the  one  or  two  astronomers  by  whom 
all  the  observations  of  value  were  made." 

That  is  to  say,  the  most  prominent  astronomer  at  the  Naval  Obser- 
vatory, in  1867,  gives  it  as  his  deliberate  judgment,  that  in  the  previous 
history  of  that  observatory,  three-fifths  of  its  record  is  practically  blank, 
and  that  the  astronomical  output  of  the  remaining  two-fifths  is  quite 
as  good  as  could  have  been  expected  with  unsuitable  instruments  and 
untrained  observers. 

The  new  Transit  Circle  set  up  in  1865,  with  which  to  make  obser- 
vations for  what  has  been  declared  the  principal  object  of  the  Naval 
Observatory,  has  proved  a  source  of  endless  perplexity  to  the  observers, 
and  a  fruitful  theme  for  the  scoffs  and  gibes  of  astronomers  who  are 
well  versed  in  this  class  of  work.  It  is  quite  possible  that  these  obser- 
vations are  no  worse  than  those  which  have  been  made  at  some  other 


32 

observatories ;  but  they  are  certainly  inferior  to  those  made  at  Green- 
wich, Cape  of  Good  Hope,  Paris,  Berlin  and  Leyden,  and  very  decidedly 
inferior  to  those  made  at  Pulkowa.  A  part  of  this  apparent  inferiority 
may  really  be  due  to  errors  of  computation  and  printing  which  are 
excessively  frequent  in  some  of  the  annual  volumes  produced  by  the 
Observatory, — notably  in  that  for  1868.  If  our  Naval  Observatory  were 
a  small,  ill-nurtured  institution  ;  if  it  had  experienced  niggardly  instead 
of  most  generous  treatment  from  the  Government ;  if  its  superintendents 
had  not  repeatedly  declared  this  work  with  the  Transit  Circle  to  be  the 
most  important  work  of  the  Observatory ;  the  results  might  be  entitled 
to  more  lenient  judgment. 


Work  With  the  Great  Telescope. 

In  1873,  the  great  equatorial  telescope,  at  that  time  the  most  power- 
ful in  existence,  was  placed  in  position.  It  has  been  devoted  chiefly  to 
the  observation  of  double  stars  and  of  the  satellites  (or  moons)  of  the 
large  planets.  Determinations  of  the  distances  of  the  stars,  studies 
upon  nebulas  and  planets,  and  other  minor  observations,  have  also 
formed  a  part  of  the  work  done  with  this  instrument.  It  was  with  this 
instrument  that  Professor  Hall  made  his  memorable  discovery  of  the 
moons  of  Mars.  The  observations  made  with  the  great  telescope  are 
believed  to  be  standard  in  precision.  In  special  lines,  such  as  the  obser- 
vation of  faint  planetary  satellites,  ihey  are  scarcely  surpassed  else- 
where in  amount  and  value.  It  is  largely  upon  work  done  with  this 
instrument  that  the  Naval  Observatory  relies  for  whatever  of  reputation, 
as  a  place  where  observations  are  made,  it  enjoys.  Yet  this  work  is 
entirely  outside  of  its  principal  official  programme.  When  placed  on  its 
defense,  the  representatives  of  the  observatory  try  to  maintain  that 
such  work  forms  but  an  incidental  and  insignificant  part  of  its 
activity. 

To  some  extent  this  claim  is  justified.  Usually  two,  and  rarely  more 
than  three  persons,  as  astronomers  and  computers,  have  been  engaged 
in  work  with  this  instrument  in  any  one  year.  At  a  high  estimate 
these  form  not  more  than  twenty  per  cent,  of  the  effective  working-staff 
at  the  observatory, — usually  less.  The  great  telescope  has  constituted  an 
observatory  within  an  observatory.  The  astronomer  in  charge  has  been 
virtually  his  own  superintendent ;  and  perhaps  the  superintendents  of 
the  observatory  are  entitled  to  some  praise  for  permitting  this  to  be  so, 
under  the  circumstances. 

At  different  periods,  with  intervals  of  comparative  inaction,  observa- 
tions of  comets  and  small  planets  (sometimes  of  other  objects)  have  been 
made  with  the  smaller  telescope.  At  one  time,  1853-1861,  this  was 
about  the  only  sign  of  astronomical  activity  that  emanated  from  the 
Observatory.  It  is  not  known  that  these  observations  are  entitled  to 


33 

consideration  beyond  that  which  attaches  to  good  routine  observations 
of  the  kind,  constantly  produced  in  many  of  the  large  arid  small  observa- 
tories. Such  work  has  a  value.  In  order,  however,,  to  acquire  for  it 
more  than  an  incidental  and  secondary  value,  it  must  be  prosecuted 
continuously  through  long  periods,  on  some  consistent  and  comprehen- 
sive plan,  that  attends  to  distinct  needs.  There  is  no  evidence  that 
such  a  plan  has  governed  this  work  at  the  Naval  Observatory.  Ex- 
ceptional years  excluded,  the  observations  are  not  numerous  enough  to 
call  for  special  remark. 

Meteorology,  Magnetism  and  Miscellaneous. 

So  far  as  meteorological  observations  are  concerned,  those  of  the  Naval 
Observatory  have  been  of  a  simple  routine  character,  but  they  have  been 
made  with  diligence  and  regularity  by  the  watchmen  under  direction 
of  one  of  the  astronomers.  The  "night  watching  in.  stormy  weather" 
has,  after  all,  fallen  to  the  lot  of  civilians,  who  have  not  even  had  the 
stimulus  of  a  military  "  duty  to  compel  a  flagging  inclination." 

After  marked  inattention  to  the  subject  of  terrestrial  magnetism, 
supposed  by  the  founders' of  the  observatory  to  be  peculiarly  worthy  the 
notice  of  a  naval  institution,  the  Observatory,  in  1887,  finally  inaugura- 
ted a  magnetical  department,  the  buildings  for  which  were  provided  by 
the  Hydrographic  office.  This  subject  has  apparently  interested  the 
younger  officers  stationed  at  the  Observatory.  But  already  in  his  report 
for  1890,  we  find  the  Superintendent  saying  that  the  "  services  of  a 
laborer"  at  a  salary  of  $720  per  annum  "  are  urgently  required."  This 
"  laborer,"  in  addition  to  the  care  of  the  little  buildings,  or  rooms  (which 
would  doubtless  prove  too  much  of  a  burden  to  the  seven  laborers  already 
employed,  as  well  as  to  the  two  "skilled  laborers"),  could  "read  and 
record  temperatures,"  "  develop  photographs,  make  prints  and  do  other 
work,  which  at  present  takes  up  much  of  the  time  of  the  officers  in 
charge  that  could  be  more  profitably  employed."  It  is  the  old  story. 
The  details  of  scientific  work  are  as  irksome  to  military  men,  as  the 
routine  duties  of  the  military  camp  or  vessel  of  war  would  be  to  scientific 
men. 

The  Naval  Observatory  rates  chronometers  for  the  Navy.  This  work 
has  been  done  by  naval  officers  in  recent  years ;  and  in  connection  with 
it  an  elaborate  public  time  service  has  been  maintained,  resulting  in 
considerable  friction  with  private  observatories.  This  department  has 
doubtless  been  maintained  in  a  sufficiently  creditable  manner.  This  is 
the  work  of  a  Naval  Observatory. 

Astronomical  Researches  by  the  Professors. 

Since  1861,  there  has  emanated  from  the  Naval  Observatory  a  series 
of  astronomical  memoirs,  usually  in  the  form  of  "Appendices"  to  the 


34 

annual  volume.  Some  of  these  have  earned  a  deservedly  high  reputation, 
and  are  not  surpassed  in  value  by  the  similar  contributions  from  any 
other  observatory  in  the  world.  Many  of  these  researches  have  been 
published  elsewhere  than  in  the  Observatory  volumes.  For  whatever  of 
reputation  among  astronomers  that  it  enjoys,  the  Naval  Observatory  is 
more  indebted  to  these  memoirs  than  to  its  work  in  observation.  In 
1877,  the  Superintendent,  in  an  attempt  to  defend  the  existing  organiza- 
tion of  the  observatory,  cited  some  facts  to  show  the  appreciation  in 
which  it  was  held  abroad.  (Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for 
1877,  pp.  317-9).  Among  other  things  the  space  devoted  to  the  Naval 
Observatory  in  the  "  Grehnan  Astronomical  Review"  was  counted  up. 
This  was  really  no  test  of  the  value  of  observatory  work,  or  a  very  im- 
perfect one  at  least.  It  was  shown  that  this  space  amounted  to  1044 
pages.  But  of  these  1044  Pages>  59  pages,  or  more  than  half,  were 
devoted  to  the  personal  researches  of  Professor  Newcomb  ;  so  that  if  this 
is  a  test  of  appreciation  for  observatory  work  considerably  more  than 
half  of  it  in  this  case  is  due  to  the  volunteer  efforts  of  one  man  out  of 
the  fifteen  or  twenty  employed.  One  is  tempted  to  speculate  as  to  what 
might  have  been  the  result  if  Professor  Newcomb  had  been  given  the 
power  to  direct  the  labors  of  the  others  as  efficiently  as  he  did  his 
own. 

In  fact,  very  little  of  favorable  comment  upon  the  work  of  the  Naval 
Observatory  will  be  anywhere  found  that  does  not  relate  to  such  of  the 
"  Appendices  "  as  contain  the  personal  researches  of  the  Professors  of 
Mathematics,  without  special  connection  with  the  observations  of  the 
Observatory.  The  work  with  the  Transit  Circle,  Yarnall's  Catalogue, 
and  other  purely  observational  work  of  the  observatory  have  been  the- 
subjects  of  occasional  descriptive  comment. 

Those  of  the  "Appendices"  which  contain  general  memoirs  upon  sub- 
jects of  astronomical  research  not  specially  founded  upon  observations 
made  at  the  Naval  Observatory,  with  the  briefer  contributions  to  astro- 
nomical journals  upon  theoretical  subjects,  while  they  are  the  most  cred- 
itable part  of  its  record,  have  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  its  principal 
function  as  an  institution  where  observations  are  made.  They  were 
almost  invariably  volunteer  works,  undertaken  solely  at  the  instance  of 
the  authors  themselves,  who  were  not  in  any  sense  directed  to  perform 
them.  There  was  never  a  superintendent  at  the  Naval  Observatory  who 
could  have  presumed  to  exercise  any  actual  supervision  over  these 
works,  further  than  to  permit  them  to  be  done,  and  to  say  how  much 
time  and  money  could  be  spared  for  the  purpose,  in  addition  to  extra- 
official  work.  The  superintendents  are,  of  course,  entitled  to  whatever 
of  praise  is  due 'to  them  for  aiding  these  works  in  some  cases,  and  for 
permitting  them  to  be  done. 


35 

Respects  in  which  the  Naval  Observatory  has  Failed. 

« 

It  is  quite  evident  from  the  record,  that  the  Naval  Observatory  has 
not  achieved  the  place  in  the  annals  of  astronomy  which  might  have 
been  expected  from  the  generous  support  which  it  has  received.  For 
the  first  seventeen  years  it  was  astronomically  a  failure.  .This  Judgment 
is  very  well  and  fairly  expressed  in  the  comments  of  Professor  Newcomb, 
previously  quoted.  The  period  from  1861  to  about  1868  was  one  of  de- 
velopment. During  this  time  the  Observatory  was  successively  in 
charge  of  the  two  superintendents  who,  alone,  out  of  the  entire  list,  could 
lay  even  a  moderate  claim  to  professional  standing  in  astronomy.  Later, 
the  record  of  the  Observatory  has  been  uneven  and,  on  the  whole,  dis- 
tinctly unsatisfactory ;  and  during  the  last  six  or  eight  years  it  has  de- 
generated into  a  lifeless  and  unproductive  routine. 

The  chief  trouble  has  often  been  pointed  out  by  astronomers.  There 
has  been  no  evidence  that  the  activities  of  the  Observatory  are  based  on 
any  specific  and  controlling  plan.  Its  work,  like  that  of4 many  small 
observatories,  has  been  desultory  and  without  cumulative  effect.  This 
is  made  more  plain  and  definite  in  this  way.  Each  of  the  great  national 
observatories  has  striven  to  become  authority  in  some  important  field  of 
work.  Greenwich  leads  in  the  thoroughness,  abundance,  and  continuity 
of  its  observations  upon  the  principal  stars  and  the  bodies  of  the  solar 
system.  Pulkowa  is  foremost  in  observations  of  fundamental  precision 
upon  the  stars  visible  to  unassisted  vision,  and  in  the  determination  of 
astronomical  constants  pertaining  to  that  class  of  observations.  The 
Paris  National  Observatory  has  gained  leadership  in  photography  of 
precision  upon  the  stars.  The  Cape  of  Good  Hope  Observatory  occupies 
for  the  Southern  hemisphere  the  field  corresponding  to  that  held  by 
Greenwich  in  the  Northern ;  and,  besides,  is  foremost  in  micrometric 
work  with  the  heliometer.  The  Berlin  Observatory,  with  its  related 
Computing  bureau,  has  become  authority  in  regard  to  the  small  planets ; 
and  Potsdam  Observatory  is  the  leader  in  the  more  recondite  researches 
by  the  spectroscope  and  photography,  where  these  depend  on  accurate 
measurements.  Bonn  has  been  foremost  in  the  uraiiometry  of  the  north- 
ern sky,  Cordoba  in  that  of  the  southern ;  each  in  its  sphere  having  also 
led  in  the  comprehensive  observation  of  telescopic  stars.  The  list  might 
be  prolonged,  but  these  illustrations  will  suffice  to  show  that  while  each 
of  these  observatories  has  made  valuable  contributions  in  varied  lines  of 
research,  they  are  each  of  them  authority  in  some  one  or  more  related 
lines.  For  instance,  any  one  desiring  immediate  information,  without 
absolute  completeness,  in  these  respective  lines,  would  naturally  consult 
the  work  of  these  observatories  first ;  and  they  would  be  apt  to  test  the 
value  of  similar  observations  elsewhere,  by  inquiring  whether  it  comes 
up  to  the  standard  of  these  observatories.  It  would  be  natural  to  say  in 
praise  of  the  work  of  a  given  observatory,  that  it  was  nearly  or  quite  as 


36 

good  as  the  similar  work  of  one  of  these  observatories  in  that  line.  That 
would  be  considered  praise  sufficient  to  settle  the  matter.  The  Naval 
Observatory  has  made  the  best  and  most  numerous  observations  upon 
the  fainter  moons  of  the  planets.  Otherwise,  there  is  scarcely  a  point 
in  which  that  observatory  would  be  considered  by  astronomers  to  have 
made  a  distinctly  leading  record.  Otherwise  no  observatory  would  feel 
complimented  by  having  it  said  that  its  observations  in  a  particular  line 
are  as  good  as  the  corresponding  observations  of  Washington.  Outside  the 
work  done  by  means  of  the  great  Equatorial,  since  1873,  the  absolute 
destruction  of  all  the  observations  ever  made  at  the  Naval  Observatory 
would  not  sensibly  delay  the  progress  of  research  in  any  line.  The  point 
in  this  statement  is  not  that  the  work  is  not  fairly  good,  but  that  none  of 
it  is  so  good  and  unique  as  to  be  indispensable — not  so  good  but  that 
equally  good  or  better,  covering  the  same  ground,  cannot  be  found  else- 
where. The  Naval  Observatory  has  not  been  a  leader. 

Nevertheless,  ever  since  the  administration  of  .Captain  G-illiss,  the  Ob- 
servatory his  had  a  large  corps  of  able  assistants.  It  is  not  assuming 
too  much  to  say  that  it  is  not  inferior  to  the  astronomical  staff  of  any 
other  observatory.  But  as  a  rule  there  has  been  an  apparent  lack  of 
zeal  in  the  observations,  where  in  the  stress  of  scientific  competition, 
zeal  is  so  necessary.  The  causes  of  this  cannot  readily  be  stated  with 
precision.  They  may  originate  in  a  variety  of  sources  to  be  considered 
later  on.  Badly  planned  instruments  would  be  one  cause.  Another 
would  be  the  feeling  that,  owing  to  the  absence  of  a  well-defined  aim 
and  an  equally  denned  plan,  the  results  could  not  rise  above  common- 
place in  usefulness.  They  would  be  merely  imitative,  and  would  have 
no  distinctive  value.  They  would  not  be  likely  to  be  hereafter  cited  to 
determine  any  particular  thing  which  could  not  be  as  well  or  better  de- 
termined through  other  evidence.  The  observations  savor  too  much  of 
unthinking  and  unprofitable  routine.  The  professors,  therefore,  would 
feel  like  saving  their  energies  for  their  own  personal  researches,  rather 
than  to  spend  them  in  wheeling  the  sands  of  the  seashore  with  aimless 
industry  from  one  point  to  another.  The  lack  of  comprehensive  schemes 
of  investigation  in  which  the  labors  of  many  can  be  coordinated,  so  as 
to  produce  an  impressive  whole,  as  at  Pulkowa,  is  also  responsible  to 
some  extent  for  the  present  state  of  things.  In  short,  the  Observatory 
has  been  without  a  directing  head.  The  superintendents,  wisely  recog- 
nizing their  inability  to  direct  the  scientific  labors,  in  the  manner  sug- 
gested, have  had  the  tact  and  discretion  to  perceive  that  the  best  thing 
under  the  circumstances,  would  be  to  leave  the  chief  assistants  to  do  as 
they  please.  It  was  probably  the  wisest  course ;  but  no  great  observa- 
tory can  ever  be  built  up  in  that  way.  Millions  spent  on  marble  palaces 
and  costly  apparatus,  would  serve  only  to  emphasize  the  failure. 


37 

Opinion  of  the  Superintendent  of  the   Naval  Observatory. 

These  views  upon  the  recent  history  of  the  Observatory  may  appear 
hypercritical.  There  is  no  institution  of  the  kind  in  which  one  may  not 
easily  pick  flaws.  It  is  much  easier  to  criticise  astronomical  observa- 
tions, than  it  is  to  make  good  ones.  It  will,  therefore  be  interesting  to 
call  in  the  judgment  of  the  Superintendent  of  the  Naval  Observatory  in 
the  case. 

Consider,  then,  the  progress  of  annual  expenditure  for  current  main- 
tenance of  the  Observatory.  This  may  begin  with  1867,  when  the 
Observatory  was  relieved  of  the  care  of  the  charts.  Exclude  extraordi- 
nary expenditures,  amounting  to  $570,000.  (See  appended  Note  B.) 
The  figures  for  all  purposes  cannot  be  very  exactly  given  without 
recourse  to  the  records  on  file  in  the  appropriate  departments.  But  it  is 
possible  to  form  fair  estimates.  From  such  estimates  it  will  appear  that 
the  total  resources  of  the  Naval  Observatory  have  amounted  to  an 
annual  average,  in  the  period,  1867  to  1873,  of  $47,000 ;  from  1873  to 
1879,  of  $56,000;  from  1879  to  1885,  of  $60,500;  and  from  1885  to  1891 
of  $60,800.  (Appended  Note  B.)  It  may  be  thought  that  the  salaries 
of  line  officers  of  the  Navy  ought  not  to  be  included  in  these  estimates, 
on  the  ground  that  the  same  number  would  have  to  be  maintained 
whether  they  were  assigned  to  the  Observatory  or  not.  In  that  case,  the 
annual  averages  would  be  :  for  the  period,  1867  to  1873,  about  $36,580; 
for  1873  to  1879,  about  $43,170;  for  1879.  to  1885,  about  $41,040;  and 
for  1885  to  1891,  about  $43,340.  (Appended  Note  B.)  On  either  hypoth- 
esis, there  has  evidently  been  no  material  diminution  in  the  total 
resources  of  the  Naval  Observatory  during  the  six  years,  1885  to  1891, 
as  compared  with  the  six  years  of  the  period,  1873  to  1879. 

It  might  be  inferred,  therefore,  that  the  efficiency  of  the  Observatory 
has  been  well  maintained  of  late,  especially  as  the  average  resources 
from  1889  to  1891  (for  the  two  fiscal  years)  were  perceptibly  larger  than 
for  the  other  years  with  which  they  are  grouped.  No  great  surprise 
ought  to  be  felt,' if  it  should  turn  out  that  added  experience  of  the  astro- 
nomical corps,  inspired  by  the  increasing  development  of  astronomy, 
had  quickened  the  pulses  of  the  observatory  in  a  sensible  degree.  On 
this  point,  the  present  Superintendent,  in  his  annual  report  for  the  year 
ending  June  30,  1890,  says : 

"  The  issuing  of  the  annual  volumes  of  the  observatory  has  been  for 
years  falling  farther  and  farther  behind,  until  now  publication  is  five 
years  behind  the  observations,  and  the  amount  of  work  done  has  been 
growing  less  and  less.  Important  improvements  in  instruments  arid  in 
methods  of  observation,  as  well  as  new  and  equally  important  lines  of 
research,  many  of  which  are  actively  pushed  forward  at  the  principal 
Government  observatories,  have  here  been  entirely  neglected  on  account 
of  the  lack  of  practical  astronomers  to  make  independent  observations 
and  to  carry  on  special  investigations  in  conjunction  with  other  observa- 
tories. In  this  connection,  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  from  the  cause 


38 

just  mentioned  this  observatory  was  unable  to  perform  its  part  in  observ- 
ing the  positions  of  the  stars  in  the  zone  assigned  to  complete  a  chart  of 
the  heavens."  (Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1890,  p.  99.) 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  the  Superintendent  prefaces  the  above  extract 
from  his  report  with  the  following  statement : 

"  Out  of  the  corps  of  twelve  professors  of  mathematics  in  the  Navy, 
there  are .  now  only  six  who  are  on  duty  as  astronomers ;  one  of  the 
ablest  of  these  will  be  retired  shortly,  leaving  but  five  for  service  at  the 
Observatory  and  Nautical  Almanac  office.  In  contrast  with  this  there 
were  in  1876,  and  for  several  years  about  that  time,  six  professors  of 
mathematics,  well  kno\yri  as  astronomers,  engaged  in  active  work  at  the 
observatory  alone." 

The  number  of  professors  under  the  orders  of  the  superintendent  from 
1885  to  the  present  time  has  been  five, — all  astronomers ;  and  three  of 
them  are  among  the  number  alluded  to  by  the  Superintendent  as  well 
known  astronomers  in  1876,  the  others  coming  in  under  the  system  of 
rigid  examinations  in  vogue  for  appointments  to  that  corps.  The  effect- 
ive reduction  in  the  number  of  professors  has  not,  therefore,  been  very 
great ;  and  it  should  have  been  compensated  in  some  measure  by  the 
increase  of  four  or  five  in  the  number  of  naval  officers  on  duty  at  the 
Observatory  in  the  latter  period. 

Astronomers,  the  world  over,  who  have  given  much  attention  to  the 
matter,  will  cordially  agree  with  the  present  Superintendent  in  his  main 
conclusions.  But  they  do  not  agree  with  the  idea  of  the  Superintendent 
that  this  unfortunate  state  of  affairs  is  altogether  due  to  "the  lack  of 
practical  astronomers  to  make  independent  observations."  When  that 
opinion  was  written  there  were  on  duty  at  the  observatory,  exclusive  of 
naval  officers,  at  least  eight  men,  who  are  entitled  to  be  called  practical 
observers  and  astronomers.  Few  observatories  in  the  world  can  show  a 
list  larger  than  this.  Rarely  has  so  large  an  annual  appropriation  for 
general  and  contingent  expenses  been  available  for  the  use  of  any  gov- 
ernment observatory.  In  the  sum  total,  the  resources  for  an  observatory 
of  the  first  rank  have  always  been  provided  in  undimiriishing  amount. 
If  these  are  not  so  applied  as  to  maintain  the  full  efficiency  of  the  insti- 
tution, there  must  be  something  wrong  with  the  system. 

SECTION  VI. —  NAVAL  OFFICERS  AS  ASTRONOMERS. 
One  of  the  reasons  why  the  scientific  prosperity  of  the  Observatory 
appears  to  bear  no  definite  relation  to  its  total  resources  in  men  and 
money  at  any  time,  can  be  attributed  to  the  fact  that  naval  officers  are 
not  necessarily,  in  virtue  of  their  commissions,  trained  astronomers,  or 
scientific  men.  This  statement  implies  no  disrespect  to  naval  officers, — 
any  more  than  the  assertion  that  our  great  statesmen  are  not,  as  a  rule, 
skilled  musicians  could  be  regarded  as  derogatory  to  them.  The  people, 
recalling  the  facts  of  a  glorious  history,  feel  the  greatest  confidence  in 
our  naval  officers  in  their  professional  capacity.  Our  naval  officers  have 


39 
• 
shown  themselves  to  be  skillful  and  diligent  in  matters  concerning  their 

own  profession ;  courteous  and  manly  representatives  of  their  country  in 
times  of  peace ;  cool  and  reasonable  in  irritating  relations  ;  energetic 
and  decisive  in  emergencies ;  chivalrous  arid  intrepid  in  fight.  But  all 
this  public  esteem  and  admiration,  which  they  have  justly  earned  and 
now  deserve,  does  not  entitle  them  to  preside  over  our  courts  of  justice, 
to  manage  our  hospitals,  or  to  superintend  our  observatories. 

Why,  then,  do  we  find  our  Government  observatory  in  the  hands  of 
naval  officers  ? 

One  motive  for  placing  the  Observatory  in  the  hands  of  the  Navy,  had 
its  origin  in  the  excess  of  naval  officers,  and  in  the  belief  that  this  excess 
could  be  profitably  employed  in  astronomy.  This  excess  was  very  great 
at  the  time  the  Observatory  was  founded.  (See  Report  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Navy,  for  1845.)  It  was  so  great  that,  in  the  words  of  Secretary 
Bancroft,  some  of  them  "since  their  promotions  have  not  received  orders, 
and,  from  the  excess  of  officers  and  for  other  reasons,  can  never  receive 
them."  At  the  same  time  our  vessels  of  war  could  not  sail  up  the  Potomac  to 
the  capital  of  the  nation  without  charts  procured  from  the  Admiralty  office 
in  England.  (Report  of  Lieutenant  Maury,  for  1845).  The  Government 
of  that  day  appears  to  have  preferred  to  employ  our  naval  officers  in 
astronomy,  Lather  than  in  maritime  surveying ;  though  it  may  be  doubted 
if  this  preference  extended  to  the  officers  themselves.  That  the  Obser- 
vatory did  afford  a  refuge  for  a  goodly  part  of  this  excess  of  naval 
officers  is  well  known.  For  instance,  in  the  introduction  of  the  Obser- 
vatory volume  for  1851-2,  it  is  stated  that  forty-five  officers  were  on  duty 
there  during  those  two  years,  the  term  of  service  averaging  about  eight 
months  for  each.  The  astronomical  observations  for  those  years  are  con- 
ceded to  be  practically  worthless. 

The  attempt  to  convert  naval  officers  into  astronomers  has  never  suc- 
ceeded and  cannot  succeed  unless  the  officer,  as  in  the  case  of  Captain 
Gilliss,  virtually  abandons  his  profession.  The  young  man  who  joins 
the  Navy  because  he  has  a  strong  taste  for  it  is  not  likely  to  have  the 
temperament  necessary  to  make  a  successful  scientific  investigator. 
The  astronomical  observations  made  by  line  officers  of  the  Navy  at  the 
observatory  are  relatively  few  and  inferior.  This  can  be  specifically 
shown  with  reference  to  the  observations  they  have  made  with  the 
meridian  instruments  upon  the  sun,  moon,  planets,  and  telescopic  stars. 
The  observations  they  made  with  the  "  prime  vertical  transit  "  in  1845 
have  been  shown  by  Professor  Hall  to  have  for  each  observation  only 
one-third  the  value  of  those  made  with  the  same  instrument  by  ex- 
perienced astronomers  in  1862  to  1867.  (Astronomical  Journal,  Vol.  X., 
p.  57.) 

After  an  interval  of  nearly  thirty  years  in  which  no  astronomical 
observations  of  scientific  consequence  had  been  attempted  by  officers  of 
the  naval  line,  a  systematic  and  persistent  effort  was  made  in  the 


40 

• 

period,  1882  to  1885,  to  employ  these  officers  in  astronomical  observa- 
tions. This  aroused  protests  in  the  public  press,  but  the  officers  per- 
severed.* Except  for  the  injury  they  might  do  the  scientific  reputation 
of  the  country,  and  for  the  diversion  of  their  energies  into  a  channel 
having  nothing  in  common  with  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  edu- 
cated at  the  expense  of  the  Government,  there  was,  perhaps,  no  valid 
reason  why  they  should  not  make  the  experiment.  The  Government 
can  have  the  services  of  any  number  of  astronomers  likely  to  be 
required,  at  rates  of  compensation  no  greater  than  the  naval  officers 
receive,  without  incurring  one  dollar  of  expenditure,  either  in  the  pre- 
liminary or  in  the  professional  education  of  these  persons. 

The  observations  which  one  of  the  senior  officers  made  upon  comets 
and  small  planets,  with  the  smaller  equatorial  telescope,  were  numerous 
and  have  been  published.  It  is  probable  that  they  are  of  fair  quality. 
Such  observations  are  of  the  class  which  the  beginner  finds  it  easiest  to 
master.  They  had  not  the  remotest  connection  with  any  nautical  or 
naval  utility. 

Other  officers  observed  the  sun,  moon  and  planets  with  the  transit 
instrument.  These  observations  are  also  published.  They  are 

*  An  anonymous  writer,  "  N,"  evidently  representing-  the  naval  line  at  the  ob- 
servatory, wrote  a  communication  to  the  New  York  Tribune,  defending-  the  policy 
of  the  Superintendent  in  this  controversy.  This  article,  which  appears  in  the  issue 
of  the  Tribune  for  Feb.  12,  1883,  maintains  among-  other  points  strongly  put : 

"  4.  The  officers  eng-ag-ed  upon  this  work  were  selected  for  their  mathematical 
and  scientific  attainments,  and  in  the  former  at  least  will  stand  comparison  with  a 
majority  of  the  professors  of  mathematics." 

'  Ag-ain,  he  says  :  "  The  Naval  Observatory  is  supported  at  g-overnment  expense 
for  naval  purposes  and  while  in  addition  to  its  special  uses  other  scientific  work  may 
be  done,  it  has  never  been  the  policy  of  this  country  to  sustain  establishments  for 
purely  scientific  investigations.  The  most  important  duty  at  the  Naval  Observatory 
is  the  testing,  rating  and  care  of  the  chronometers,  collecting  data  for  the  Nautical 
Almanac,  and  sending  time  signals  and  dropping  time  balls  at  the  various  stations. 
These  are  purely  naval  wants  which  can  be  readily  supplied  by  naval  officers." 

These  extracts,  in  connection  with  arguments  used  in  the  official  reports,  which 
are  of  an  altogether  different  tenor,  well  illustrate  the  cleverness  of  some  of  those 
who  favor  naval  control  of  the  observatory  in  misleading  public  sentiment.  To  the 
public  they  say,  this  is  purely  a  practical  Naval  Observatory.  But  they  well  know 
that  if  they  should  say  this  officially  in  a  way  to  attract  the  notice  of  astronomers, 
they  could  be  at  once  convicted  of  the  most  outrageous  extravagance.  If  that  posi- 
tion is  true  the  naval  officers  have  absolutely  squandered  nearly  $40,000  per  annum 
in  useless  expenditure  for  the  observatory,  and  $600,000  in  expenditures  for  the  new 
observatory.  The  public  is  told  that  naval  officers  are  competent  astronomers.  It 
is  possible  that  public  officers  and  Congressmen,  in  private  conversations,  are  led  to 
suppose  that  every  naval  officer  is  necessarily  an  astronomer.  But  no  such  claim 
would  be  made  in  the  presence  of  professional  astronomers.  Whenever  added  sup- 
port for  the  observatory  is  needed,  the  request  is  put  upon  the  ground  th  it  the 
observatory  is  a  great  scientific  institution,  and  it  is  said  :  *  *  *  "  It  is  neces- 
sary to  appoint  some  professors  of  mathematics,  astronomers  of  known  experience, 
as  it  is  mainly  to  this  corps  that  the  observatory  has  to  look  for  aid  to  keep  up  its 
astronomical  reputation."  (Rep.  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1890,  p.  99.)  The 
arguments  for  removal  of  the  observatory  to  the  new  site,  with  the  attendant 
enormous  expenditure,  were  exclusively  based  upon  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
and  increasing  the  scientific  glories  of  the  establishment.  On  any  other  ground  the 
proposal  would  have  been  simply  impudent.  The  authorities  should  insist  upon 
knowing  definitely,  once  for  all,  what  kind  of  an  observatory  the  Naval  Observatory 
officially  claims  to  be.  The  law  does  not  say. 


41 

decidedly  inferior  to  the  observations  made  by  civilian  astronomers  at 
the  same  time  in  the  opposite  wing  of  the  observatory  building,  though 
the  latter  were  obliged  to  include  an  operation  which  doubled  the  diffi- 
culty of  the  observation,  and  which  the  instrument  used  by  the  naval 
officers  did  not  permit  to  be  employed.  Mathematically  weighed,  one 
observation  of  the  sun  by  the  trained  astronomers  is  worth  about  as 
much  as  three  by  the  naval  officers.  In  the  matter  of  general  reliability, 
the  contrast  would  be,  without  doubt,  more  unfavorable  to  the  work  of 
the  naval  officers. 

Still  other  officers  observed  with  the  prime  vertical  transit.  These 
observations  have  never  been  published,  and  nothing  is  known  to  the 
astronomical  public  as  to  their  number  or  quality. 

Occasionally,  junior  officers  have  served  as  routine  computers,  though 
the  amount  of  such  work  done  by  them  is  not  relatively  important.  If 
they  are  patient  under  such  tasks,  there  is  no  'reason  why,  after  a  few 
months  of  training,  they  should  not  render  efficient  service.  Such 
service  some  of  them  have  produced,  as  evidenced  by  the  testimony  of 
astronomers  for  whom  it  was  rendered.  Indeed,  one  may  cheerfully 
concede  that  the  naval  officers  are  men  of  much  more  than  average 
intelligence.  The  manner  of  their  original  appointment  secures  this. 
But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  they  can  become  skilled  astronomers  for 
independent  work  in  the  intervals  of  their  regular  professional  duties. 

This  appears  to  have  been  the  conclusion  of  the  late  Admiral  John 
Rodgers,  a  former  superintendent  of  the  observatory.  He  says : 

"No  corps  in  which  observatory  work  is  casual,  to  be  abandoned  upon 
occasion  for  the  proper  duties  of  another  profession,  can  compete  with 
the  observatories  of  Europe,  in  which  astronomical  observations  are  a 
life-long  pursuit."  (Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1877, 
p.  320.) 

On  July  1,  1886,  these  observations  by  officers  of  the  naval  line 
appear  to  have  been  definitely  abandoned,  and  it  is  not  likely  that  the 
experiment  will  soon  be  resumed.  Neither  Congress  nor  the  Navy 
department  could  make  astronomers  from  naval  officers,  but  through  an 
arrangement  by  which  astronomers  are  sometimes  appointed  to  be 
"  Professors  of  Mathematics  in  the  United  States  Navy,"  it  has  become 
possible  to  claim  that  the  Observatory  is  really  a  naval  establishment 
which  employs  chiefly  "officers  of  the  Navy." 

The  pursuit  of  astronomical  investigation,  like  that  of  all  the  other 
exact  sciences,  is  a  profession,  requiring  for  its  ordinary  walks  fully  as 
much  preliminary  training  as  is  required  for  the  successful  practice  of 
law  or  medicine,  and  for  its  higher  departments,  in  their  way,  as  much 
natural  aptitude,  training  and  experience,  as  are  necessary  to  the 
development  of  the  qualities  of  statesmanship  in  the  legal  practitioner, 
or  of  the  power  to  make  independent  discoveries  in  the  healing  art  by 
the  physician.  Mathematical  and  astronomical  training  at  the  Naval 


42 

Academy  is  certainly  not  superior  to  that  which  is  furnished  at  our 
leading  colleges  and  technical  schools,  and  very  probably  inferior  to 
that  which  is  afforded  to  students  of  optional  courses  in  these  institutions. 
Yet  the  students  of  our  colleges  and  universities  when  they  first  enter 
the  astronomical  observatories  are  considered  to  be,  and  are  actually 
found  to  be,  mere  beginners  in  the  science  of  astronomy.  They  have  at 
best  some  elementary  notions  of  the  science,  and  if  previously  trained  in 
the  proper  way,  are  ready  to  make  a  good  beginning, — but  nothing 
more.  They  are  still  in  need  of  professional  training. 

Lieutenant  Grilliss,  who  was  well  aware  of  what  was  needed,  proposed 
to  give  the  midshipmen  such  training  at  the  observatory.  He  says  : 

"  They  should  possess  a  knowledge  of  the  higher  mathematics,  and  a 
taste  for  astronomical  pursuits.  To  such  requisites  they  must  add 
patience,  perseverance,  and  endurance ;  for  the  refinements  of  astronomy 
entail  long  hours  of  delicate  adjustments  and  calculations,  as  well  as 
continued  loss  of  sleep,  and  exposure  to  the  external  temperature  at  all 
seasons.  Such  officers  it  may  be  somewhat  difficult  to  select  immediately ; 
but,  with  an  eye  to  the  future,  inducements  should  be  offered  midship- 
men to  give  greater  attention  to  study.  Mathematics  being  the  ground- 
work, upon  which  must  be  built  all  scientific  knowledge,  I  recommend 
to  serious  consideration  the  propriety  of  offering  to  the  five  midshipmen 
who  annually  pass  the  best  examination  in  its  higher  branches,  the  honor 
of  serving  four  years  at  the  observatory.  If  no  others  are  ordered,  I 
think  the  emulation  will  be  such  in  a  few  years  that  the  junior  officers 
will  deservedly  attain  a  high  character  among  scientific  men."  (Pp.  66 
and  67,  Senate  Doc.,  No.  114,  28th  Cong.,  2d  session.  Feb.  7,  1845.) 

This  proposal  was  not  adopted,  and  evidently  could  not  be  consistently 
adopted  so  long  as  the  Government  is  always  able  to  command  the 
services  of  trained  astronomers  without  offering  a  bounty,  and  without 
incurring  the  smallest  expense  for  their  education.  Yet  it  was  the 
only  method  by  which  astronomers  could  be  developed  from  the  Navy, 
or  from  any  other  walk  in  life. 

What  actually  took  place  is  learned  from  the  comments  of  Lieutenant 
Maury,  Superintendent,  as  well  as  from  other  sources.  He  says  : 

"  A  large  corps,  principally  consisting  of  lieutenants  and  passed  mid- 
shipmen is  engaged  upon  the  details  of  these  investigations  [wind  and 
current  charts].  They  are  liable  to  be  called  away  to  sea,  and  often 
are  at  a  moment's  warning ;  and  that  so  frequently,  that  almost  the 
entire  corps  is  sometimes  ordered  off  to  sea  and  a  new  one  sent  in  its 
place,  so  as  to  form,  in  the  course  of  a  few  weeks,  a  complete  change  of 
the  officers  engaged  upon  these  investigations."  (Washington  Obser- 
vations for  1846 ;  published,  1851.) 

Even  when  applied  to  the  simple  clerical  details  required  of  assistants 
on  those  wind  and  current  investigations,  the  system  proved  vexatious, 
and  called  forth  complaint  from  the  very  man  who,  as  much  as  any  one, 
was  responsible  for  it.  The  te,rm  of  shore  duty  at  present  appears  to  be 
more  regular  than  it  formerly  was ;  but  even  with  three  years  of  it,  the 


43 

young  officer  must  go  to  sea  just  at  the  time  when  he  could  begin  to  be 
useful  in  the  scientific  operations. 

It  is  indeed  true  that  very  man y  of  our  American  astronomers  are 
practically  self-taught.  With  time  and  opportunity,  the  resolute  man, 
filled  with  enthusiasm  for  his  chosen  science  can  conquer  all  obstacles. 
But  it  requires  both  time  arid  opportunity,  and  these  struggles  cannot 
be  commingled  wifch  the  distractions  of  another  profession. 

SECTION  VII. —  REASONS  WHY  ASTRONOMICAL  WORK  SHOULD  BE 
DIRECTED  BY  AN  ASTRONOMER,  AND  CAUSES  OF  THE  FAILURE  OP 
THE  SUPERINTENDENTS  OP  THE  NAVAL  OBSERVATORY. 

But  if  it  is  difficult  for  the  naval  officer  to  acquire  the  rudiments  of 
the  astronomical  profession,  how  much  more  hopeless  must  it  seem  for 
him  to  accumulate  that  ripened  experience,  those  broad  views  of  as- 
tronomy, and  that  keen  discernment  of  the  present  tendencies  of  inves- 
tigation, so  necessary  in  the  man  who  is  to  supervise,  direct,  and  inspire 
the  labors  of  others  in  an  institution  mainly  devoted  to  professional 
research  in  astronomy. 

The  acknowledged  scientific  inefficiency  of  the  Naval  Observatory  is 
very  largely  due  to  the  lack  of  skilled  superintendence.  A  man  who 
should  boast  that  he  never  saw  a  ship  or  a  cannon,  and  that  none  of  his 
subordinates  ever  had,  would  never  be  entrusted  with  the  command  of 
a  ship  or  squadron  about  to  engage  the  enemy.  Yet  the  first  Superin- 
tendent of  the  observatory  made  much  of  the  fact  that  he  had  never  seen 
an  astronomical  "  instrument  of  the  kind  before  and  had  no  one  with 
[him]  who  had."  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  Naval  Observatory  under 
such  captaincy  has  been  beaten. 

The  Superintendent  Must  Choose  a  Field  of  Work. 
In  the  first  place,  the  superintendent  of  any  observatory  must  deter- 
mine what  is  the  best  and  most  appropriate  field  of  work  for  it.  This 
cannot  be  left  in  a  hap-hazard  way  to  the  tastes  of  the  subordinate  as- 
tronomers. Nor  is  it  any  longer  justifiable  to  devote  the  energies  of  a 
great  observatory  to  those  researches  alone,  which  tend  to  the  "  improve- 
ment of  the  art  of  navigation,"  even  in  the  most  sublimated  theoretical 
sense.  That  department  of  astronomy  must  be  looked  after,  to  supply 
its  real  needs,  in  precisely  the  same  way  that  obtains  with  other  branches 
of  the  science.  The  field  of  astronomical  research  is  widening  as  it 
never  has  before  since  the  days  of  Newton  and  his  successors.  All  the 
great  astronomical  centers  feel  the  force  of  this.  The  Greenwich  Obser- 
vatory has  made  provision  for  a  large  telescope  (diameter  of  glass,  28 
inches)  with  a  view  to  attacking  some  of  these  new  problems  with  greater 
effect.  It  has  already  set  up  a  new  photographic  telescope,  and  is  pur- 
suing with  great  energy  the  preliminary  investigations  in  celestial  pho- 
tography of  precision,  so  necessary  for  its  own  guidance  and  for  that  of 


44 

others.  The  Greenwich  Observatory  which,  for  one  hundred  and  forty 
years,  has  accomplished  far  more  than  any  other  in  furnishing  the 
material  of  observation  for  the  improvement  of  planetary  theories  arid 
for  "  finding  the  so  much  desired  longitude  at  sea,"  while  it  will  continue 
to  give  more  attention  to  that  department  of  astronomy  than  any  other 
observatory  can  afford  to  give,  will  hereafter  expend  the  greater  part  of 
its  energies  in  other  fields.  The  Royal  Observatory  at  the  Cape,  belongs 
to  the  best  type  of  modern  development.  Its  field  of  work  has  been 
completely  transformed.  Pulkowa  is  already,  and  has  been  since  its 
foundation,  engaged  in  a  line,  the  relative  importance  of  which  must 
steadily  increase  with  time.  Within  the  past  two  decades  it  has  also 
added  a  department  of  astro-physics.  The  observational  energies  of 
the  Paris  National  Observatory  are  stirred  to  a  degree  which  that  insti- 
tution has  not  heretofore  known.  For  many  years  the  numerous  German 
observatories  under  government  patronage  have  been  employed  in  inves- 
tigations, preparing  the  way  to  the  modern  revival,  both  of  mathematical 
and  physical  astronomy. 

Each  of  these  institutions  is  finding  its  own  work.  It  will  not  do  for 
a  great  observatory  to  content  itself  with  merely  imitating  them,  and 
performing  the  cooperative  tasks  suggested  by  them.  Neither  should 
a  particular  task  be  avoided  because  it  has  been  elsewhere  undertaken. 
The  highest  technical  experience  is  needed  in  order  to  decide  wisely  in 
this  choice  of  work.  The  business  of  a  national  observatory  lies  in  the 
lines  of  established  promise,  and  not  in  those  of  mere  speculation  or 
experimentation.  Observations  necessary  to  supply  the  needs  of  the 
public  service  must,  of  course,  be  attended  to  by  the  national  observa- 
tory, but  these  will  never  require  a  large  force  of  observers  or  expensive 
equipment. 

In  this  choice  of  work,  the  superintendent  has  no  safe  guide,  other- 
wise than  in  his  own  knowledge  of  astronomical  needs,  founded  upon  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  history  of  modern  astronomy,  and  of  its 
tendencies  up  to  the  present.  He  must  know  not  only  what  it  is 
practicable  to  do,  and  what  needs  to  be  done,  but  also  what  is  likely  to 
prove  the  most  profitable  investment  of  future  labor.  He  must  look 
ahead  and  see,  as  well  as  he  can,  what  is  coming.  His  assistants  can- 
not do  this  for  him.  They  can  advise,  but  the  decision  rests  with  him. 
They  may  be  able  to  choose  some  special  line  of  work  and  gain  leader- 
ship in  it,  but  they  can  rarely  extend  this  to  a  whole  department,  pro- 
vide for  the  employment  of  their  colleagues,  and  insure  uninterrupted 
continuance  of  the  work. 

Choice  of  the  works  most  appropriate  for  an  observatory  would  be 
easier  were  it  not  for  the  constantly  changing  aspect  of  astronomical 
development.  This  feature  of  change  is  more  marked  at  the  present 
time  than  it  has  ever  been  during  the  last  two  centuries.  The 
astronomy  of  twenty,years  ago  is  now  termed  "  old-fashioned,"  that  of 


45 

twenty  years  hence  will  have  a  similar  epithet  for  us.  While  many 
overestimate  the  influence  and  importance  of  this  crowding  novelty  in 
the  methods  and  substance  of  research,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  must  be 
intelligently  and  closely  studied  by  all  who  have  the  responsibility  of 
organizing  astronomical  work  on  a  large  scale.  The  question,  how  far 
not  to  yield,  may  be  as  important  and  difficult  to  decide  as  the  opposite. 
If  the  superintendent  does  not  successfully  meet  and  decide  these 
questions,  the  institution  under  his  charge  will  get  behind  the  times, 
just  as  the  present  Superintendent  of  the  Naval  Observatory  says  that 
institution  now  is. 

The  choice  of  work  must  be  governed,  to  a  great  extent,  by  the 
special  training  and  capacities  of  available  assistants.  Furthermore, 
it  is  important  that  assistants  be  directed,  or  guided,  toward  those 
spheres  of  activity  for  which  they  are  respectively  best  fitted. 
Scientific  discernment  of  a  high  order  is  required  for  the  proper  per- 
formance of  this  duty.  The  Naval  Observatory  has  suffered  from  a 
defect  in  this  respect. 

The  Direct  Supervision  of  Work. 

In  an  observatory  so  generously  supported  as  the  Naval  Observatory 
has  been,  it  may  be  possible  to  employ  high-salaried  assistants  of 
eminent  abilities  and  experience,  who  do  not  need  constant  supervision 
in  the  details  of  work.  They  should  be  permitted  as  much  freedom  in 
following  their  individual  tastes  as  is  compatible  with  the  interests  of 
the  observatory  as  a  whole  ;  but  since  the  observatory  is  supported  in 
response  to  a  public  demand,  and  not  for  the  pleasure  of  individual 
men  employed  in  its  duties,  there  should  be  some  one  who  possesses 
scientific  ability  and  knowledge  enough  to  devise  a  proper  coordination 
of  these  individual  tastes  with  the  obligation  of  the  observatory  to  the 
public,  the  interests  of  which  it  is  the  special  business  of  the  superintend- 
ent to  ascertain  and  enforce.  This  is  one  of  his  most  delicate,  techni- 
cally difficult  and  responsible  duties,  and  it  is  one  which  the  superin- 
tendent, who  is  not  an  astronomer,  must  entirely  abdicate.  So  far  as 
tact  in  dealing  with  men  is  concerned,  it  may  be  admitted  that  no 
astronomer  could  be  expected  to  surpass  the  distinguished  men  who 
have  hitherto  filled  the  office  of  Superintendent  of  the  Observatory,  and 
if  that  were  the  only  qualification  required,  there  would  be  no  occasion 
for  change. 

Also,  when  the  director  is  an  astronomer,  a  large  proportion  even 
of  the  important  work  of  a  great  observatory  can  be  performed  by 
assistants  who  might  not,  perhaps,  be  able  to  do  so  well  without  profes- 
sional guidance.  It  is  so  in  all  professions.  It  is  necessary  for  the 
director  in  such  case  to  see  that  assistants  are  competent  to  carry  out 
his  instructions,  more  or  less  detailed  as  may  be  required,  and  that  they 
are  faithful  in  the  performance  of  duties  assigned  to  them.  The  as- 


46 

sistants  must  be  not  only  physically  present  at  times  when  duty  requires 
such  presence;  they  must  not  only  manifest  the  outward  form  of  in- 
dustry, but  they  must  be  really  accomplishing  something  useful.  The 
two  former  requirements  are  probably  as  well  looked  after  now  at  the 
Naval  Observatory  as  they  are  in  any  other,  but  the  latter  requires 
personal  inspection  of  the  work  while  it  is  in  progress  by  some  one  who 
knows  how  it  ought  to  be  done,  and  an  examination  of  results,  when 
furnished,  by  a  director  professionally  competent  to  do  this  expeditiously 
and  on  his  own  independent  judgment. 

In  this  same  connection  it  is  proper  to  remark  that  it  is  an  important 
responsibility  of  a  superintendent  to  keep  a  watchful  eye  on  the  inci- 
dental needs  of  astronomy.  He  must  suggest  and  plan  the  numerous 
small  series  of  observations  and  minor  researches,  so  necessary  to  the 
vigorous  life  as  well  as  to  the  reputation  of  a  large  observatory.  It  is  in 
these  that  the  junior  assistants  find  their  opportunity  to  develop  the 
power  of  independent  research.  It  is  a  judicious  admixture  of  this  sort 
of  work  with  the  heavier  operations  of  prolonged  investigation  that  in- 
spires the  working  staff  with  fresh  zeal  which  extends  its  influence  far 
beyond  the  official  working  hours  of  the  establishment.  The  director, 
or  superintendent,  who  by  reason  of  his  professional  qualities  is  able  to 
inspire  his  assistants  with  this  zeal  for  scientific  work,  and  who  by 
reason  of  his  experience  and  attainments  is  able  to  put  his  assistants 
fairly  on  the  road  to  successful  results,  will  never  have  to  complain  of 
unwilling  service  or  inferior  work.  If  he  has  not  these  qualities  and 
this  experience,  then,  perhaps,  as  Mr.  Mallory  said,  military  methods 
may  be  necessary  "  to  compel  a  flagging  inclination." 

In  all  these  respects  the  system  of  non-professional  superintendence 
in  vogue  at  the  Naval  Observatory  has  retarded  its  usefulness  in  a 
sensible  degree.  There  have  been  periods  when  the  Observatory  seemed 
to  be  full  of  life  and  scientific  interest ;  but  analysis  will  show  that  it 
was  a  state  brought  about  by  the  activity  of  two  or  three  of  the  leading 
assistants,  and  that  it  did  not  have  the  element  of  permanence,  because 
it  did  not  spring  from  a  source  which  acted  equally  upon  the  entire 
staff'.  The  superintendent  was  not  the  scientific  leader  of  the  Observa- 
tory. 

The  Responsibility  of  Providing  Instrumental  Equipment. 

To  see  that  an  observatory  is  provided  with  the  best  practicable 
equipment  and  observing  arrangements,  at  the  least  possible  cost,  is 
another  highly  important  duty  of  the  astronomical  director. 

The  equipment  of  the  observatory  at  Pulkowa,  as  well  as  that  for  the 
Bonn  Observatory  was  provided  shortly  before  that  for  the  Naval 
Observatory ;  and  the  meiidian  instruments  then  installed  at  the  two 
former  observatories  for  observations  upon  the  stars  and  bodies  of  the 
solar  system  are  still  in  efficient  use  and  have  not  been  supplemented 


47 

by  others  during  the  fifty  years  that  have  passed.  They  are  scarcely 
to  be  surpassed  by  the  meridian  instruments  of  the  present  day,  if  an 
opinion  may  be  founded  upon  the  work  done  with  them.  In  the  same 
period,  Bessel,  the  greatest  practical  astronomer  of  the  century,  pro- 
vided a  new  meridian  instrument  for  the  Prussian  Observatory  at 
Konigsberg.  Instruments  of  a  similar  construction,  known  as  Transit 
Circles,  had  been  in  general  use  since  the  beginning  of  the  century. 
These  are  the  most  important  instrumental  factor  in  assembling  "  data 
for  computing  a  Nautical  Almanac."  Lieutenant  Gilliss  visited  many 
observatories  in  Europe  for  the  special  purpose  of  obtaining  advice  as 
to  the  new  equipment  for  the  Naval  Observatory.  At  that  time  he  was 
a  mere  tyro  in  the  art  of  astronomical  observation ;  but  very  likely  no 
astronomer  in  America  at  that  time  would  have  done  better.  This  does 
not,  however,  impair  the  force  of  the  illustration, — America  was  in  that 
respect  unfortunate.  He  was  not  able  to  Aveigh  the  conflicting  advice  he 
received,  so  as  to  arrive  at  a  proper  conclusion.  He  decided  for  the 
antiquated  "  Mural  Circle."  The  consequence  was  that  the  Observatory 
was  handicapped  in  its  principal  astronomical  undertaking  during  the 
first  twenty  years  of  its  existence  ;  while  brilliant  results  were  being 
achieved  through  the  use  of  the  instruments  procured,  as  stated,  for  the 
observatories  at  Ptilkowa,  Bonn,  Konigsberg,  and  elsewhere. 

Soon  after  entering  upon  the  duties  of  his  position,  the  Superintendent 
of  the  Naval  Observatory  conceived  the  idea  of  a  new  instrument  which 
he  christened  a  "  Refraction  Circle."  This  was  to  perfect  the  means  for 
gathering  original  material  for  the  calculation  of  an  American  Almanac, 
as  one  may  learn  from  his  glowing  descriptions  which  were  published. 
The  instrument  was  procured  at  great  cost — a  cost  undoubtedly  sufficient 
to  have  purchased  a  first-class  Transit  Circle.  There  is  no  record  of  any 
observations  made  with  it.  The  tradition  is  that  it  "  would  not  stand 
alone." 

Even  so  late  as  1865,  when  the  new  Transit  Circle  was  procured  to 
supersede  the  old  meridian  instruments,  misfortune  appears  to  have  pur- 
sued the  Observatory.  One  would  have  supposed  that  extraordinary 
care  would  have  been  exercised  in  the  plan  of  an  instrument  which 
was  to  subserve  the  principal  object  of  the  Observatory  and  employ  one- 
third,  or  more,  of  its  effective  astronomical  staff.  Yet  it  has  been 
regarded  by  astronomers  generally  as  a  failure.  If  it  be  maintained 
that  the  inferior  results  obtained  through  its  use  are  to  be  attributed  to 
incompetent  observers,  or  to  incompetent  direction,  rather  than  to  defects 
of  the  instrument,  how  shall  the  fact  be  explained  that  this  instrument 
is  now  undergoing  reconstruction  at  an  expense  nearly  sufficient  to  buy 
a  new  instrument  ? 

It  was  at  first  supposed  that  better  observations  could  be  made  with 
this  instrument  in  a  new  room,  since  that  in  which  it  was  first  placed 
was  unquestionably  not  well  suited  to  the  purpose.  The  official  record 


48 

tells  the  story  of  the  success  experienced  in  this  new  enterprise,  which, 
by  the  way,  did  not  do  away  with  the  particular  defects  of  the  obser- 
vations that  were  most  injurious. 

Report  of  Commodore  B.  F.  Sands,  Superintendent,  Sept.  25,  1869. 

"  The  architectural  qualities  of  the  new  room  have  not  yet  been 
tested,  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  for  purely  astronomical  purposes  it  is 
the  best  meridian  observing  room  in  the  world." 

Report  of  Rear  Admiral  B.  F.  Sands,  Superintendent,  Oct.  6,  1871. 

"  The  new  wing  built  for  it  [Transit  Circle]  has  answered  our  expec- 
tations, but  will  yet  require  some  fitting  up,  for  which  I  have  submitted 
an  estimate."  ' 

Report  of  Rear  Admiral  C.  H.  Davis,  Superintendent,  Oct.  17,  1874. 

"  The  Transit  Circle  observing-room  is  in  a  very  unsatisfactory  con- 
dition. It  is  impossible  to  obtain  proper  ventilation  in  the  hot  days  of 
midsummer;  the  roof-shutters  do  not  work  well;  and,  in  spite  of  frequent 
repairs,  they  leak  in  every  heavy  rain-storm  ;  the  track  for  the  reversing- 
carriage,  is  not  properly  laid ;  the  arms  of  the  reversing-carriage.  which 
are  half  an  inch  too  near  together,  require  some  changes ;  and  the  pro- 
tection of  the  thermometer,  on  which  the  computation  for  refraction 
depends,  is  such  that  there  is  frequently  an  abnormal  range  of  5°  or  6°." 

"  It  will  require  at  least  $1,500  to  put  this  room  in  order." 

In  1874,  a  splendid  new  telescope,  then  the  most  powerful  in  exist- 
ence, was  mounted  at  the  Naval  Observatory.  It  cost,  with  building 
and  fittings,  $67,000.  The  observational  record  with  this  instrument 
has  been  highly  creditable.  The  work,  however,  is  entirely  in  the  field 
of  pure  scientific  investigation.  Yet  the  authorities  of  the  Observatory 
appear  to  have  decided  that  «this  instrument  must  be  almost  totally 
reconstructed  at  the  enormous  expense  of  $32,600.  The  removal  of  this 
telescope  to  the  new  site  and  placing  it  in  position,  with  incidental 
improvements  that  may  really  be  necessary  would  cost  a  large  sum  to 
be  sure ;  but  it  requires  a  generous  Government  to  pass  over  in  silence 
this  much  greater  expenditure  upon  an  instrument  which  is  still 
virtually  new,  and  with  the  aid  of  which  so  much  excellent  work  has 
been  already  accomplished. 

This  .entire  record  in  regard  to  instrumental  equipment  is  in  striking 
contrast  to  that  of  all  other  observatories,  where  the  instruments  have 
been  provided  under  the  direction  of  competent  astronomers.  The 
number  of  serious  mistakes  which  have  been  made  by  them  in  this 
matter  is  surprisingly  small. 

Scientific  Atmosphere  of  a  Large  Observat<yry . 

Another  important  obligation  of  an  astronomical  superintendent  is  to 
see  that  his  assistants  are  properly  instructed  in  their  duties.  Even 
after  his  three  or  four  years  of  apprenticeship  the  young  observer  has 
still  much  to  learn  at  the  hands  of  experience.  He  may  gain  this 


49 

knowledge  through  the  mistakes  he  will  inevitably  make.  The  liability 
to  make  such  mistakes  of  method,  and  to  waste  labor  upon  compara- 
tively profitless  objects,  is  a  serious  drawback  for  the  small  observatories 
which  cannot  always  command  the  services  of  an  experienced  astrono- 
mer. To  a  certain  extent  110  instruction  can  entirely  do  away  with  these 
errors  of  practice.  But  it  is  the  duty  of  the  director  to  be  alert  to  dis- 
cover these  faults,  or  to  see  that  they  are  pointed  out,  and,  so  far  as 
possible,  to  correct  them  before  they  have  resulted  in  the  disfigurement 
of  what  might  otherwise  become  creditable  work.  A  great  observatory 
can  command  the  services  of  a  director  competent  to  perform  this 
service ;  if  it  neglects  this  opportunity,  it  sacrifices  its  advantage,  and 
becomes  wasteful  of  labor. 

In  short,  it  devolves  upon  the  superintendent,  vastly  more  than  upon 
any  of  his  subordinates,  to  create  a  healthy  and  vigorous  scientific  at- 
mosphere in  the  observatory ;  to  stimulate  study  for  the  enthusiasm 
which  it  generates  ;  to  nurture  an  esprit  de  corps  ;  and  to  create  a  senti- 
ment in  the  entire  staff  that  will  not  tolerate  the  production  of  an  in- 
ferior article  of  observation  or  research. 

Editorial  Duties  of  the  Superintendent. 

An  intimate  knowledge  of  the  professional  literature  of  astronomy  is 
of  essential  use  when  the  director  is  dealing  with  observations  and  de- 
ductions drawn  from  them.  The  practical  questions  come  up  :  Shall 
they  be  accepted  for  printing  in  the  form  and  condition  presented  ? 
How  do  they  compare  in  method  and  value  with  similar  observations 
and  researches  elsewhere  produced  ?  Are  they  accurate  in  the  details 
of  observation  and  calculation  ?  It  is  easy  to  say  off-hand,  "  we  have 
beaten  Greenwich  all  hollow"  (Maury  to  Blackford,  p.  49,  Life  of 
Maury),  but  it.  is  quite  another  thing  to  determine  the  value  of  astro- 
nomical work  by  a  specific  examination.  While  it  may  not  be  neces- 
sary for  the  superintendent  always  to  enter  into  every  detail  of  such  an 
examination,  the  experienced  astronomer  will  know  how  to  determine 
the  general  quality  of  the  work  in  such  a  manner  that  he  can  afford  to 
assume  genuine  responsibility  for  its  character.  The  theory  at  the 
Naval  Observatory  appears  to  have  been  that  these  editorial  functions 
could  be,  for  the  most  part,  omitted,  and  for  the  remainder,  delegated 
to  subordinates.  Common  sense  and  experience  prove  that  subordinates 
hesitate  to  throw  discredit  on  the  work  of  a  colleague,  even  when  it  is 
strongly  justified.  The  exercise  of  such  functions  by  those  \vhn  do  not 
have  the  real  power  of  decision  and  who  may  be  subjected  to  the  vexa- 
tious duty  of  defending  themselves  against  frivolous  complaints  of  in- 
justice, not  only  impairs  the  sense  of  actual  responsibility,  but  is  also  a 
fruitful  source  of  those  jealousies  which  are  complained  of  at  the  Naval 
Observatory. 


50 

Especially  must  the  superintendent  be  responsible  for  the  accuracy  of 
the  calculations  and  of  printing.  The  directors  of  the  great  national 
observatories  have  always  been  very  punctilious  on  these  points.  The 
annual  volumes  of  the  Naval  Observatory  bear  ample  testimony  to  the 
fact  that  this  necessary  function  of  the  superintendent  has  not  always 
been  exercised  with  efficiency.  A  single  example  will  suffice  to  illus- 
trate. In  1873  the  Observatory  issued  what  is  technically  known  as  a 
star-catalogue.  This  is  the  only  general  catalogue  containing  the  posi- 
tions of  a  large  number  of  stars  which  has  so  far  emanated  from  the  Ob- 
servatory. It  was  hailed  with  joy  by  astronomers  everywhere ;  for, 
although  it  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  practice  of  navigation, 
it  was  the  most  important  work  of  observation  which  had  been  published 
by  the  Observatory.  But  it  was  soon  found  to  be  crowded  with  errors 
to  such  an  extent  that  a  new  edition  was  rendered  imperatively  neces- 
sary. This  new  and  improved  edition  of  "  YamaH's  Catalogue  "  was 
issued  in  1878.  In  the  course  of  a  very  short  time  it  was  found  that  this 
new  edition  was  still  extremely  faulty.  The  entire  work  was  accord- 
ingly again  revised,  requiring  years  of  skilled  labor  for  the  purpose.  A 
third  edition  was  finally  brought  out  in  1890,  which  is  presumably  of 
the  proper  standard  of  accuracy.  The  catalogue  must  now  be  regarded 
as  one  of  decided  value. 

This  incident  furnishes  a  most  instructive  illustration  of  the  evils  which 
may  result  from  the  lack  of  efficient  superintendence.  It  is  not  alone 
the  waste  in  costly  printing,  amounting  to  thousands  of  dollars,  that 
calls  for  condemnation.  It  is  the  waste  of  labor  in  these  repeated  revi- 
sions, preparation  of  new  manuscript,  and  extra  proof-reading,  that  is 
equally  to  be  deplored.  The  loss  of  prestige  for  the  Observatory  and 
for  American  astronomy,  as  well  as  the  annoyances  and  waste  of  labor 
which  astronomers  have  suffered  in  consequence  of  these  faulty  editions, 
cannot  be  ignored.  This  was  the  fault  of  unskilled  superintendence. 

Advantages  of  a  Long    Term   of  Service  in   the   Superinteniency  of  an 

Observatory. 

Another  obvious  advantage  of  skilled  civilian  direction  for  an  astro- 
nomical observatory  is  that  resulting  from  the  long  tenure  of  office  that 
becomes  possible  under  that  system.  During  fifty  years  the  Pulkowa 
Observatory  had  two  directors.  Sir  George  B.  Airy  was  in  charge  of  the 
Greenwich  Observatory  for  forty -five  years  ;  and  during  somewhat  more 
than  two  centuries  the  directors  of  the  Greenwich  Observatory  have  num- 
bered only  eight.  The  Naval  Observatory  has  had  nine  Superintend- 
ents during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  and  six  of  these  since  1882.  One 
advantage  of  the  long  term  principle  is  the  relatively  small  loss  of  effi- 
ciency, inevitable  while  a  new  superintendent  is  adjusting  himself  to  his 
duties.  A  vastly  greater  advantage,  however,  lies  in  the  possibility  of 
originating  and  fixing  those  comprehensive  and  well-studied  scientific 


51 

policies  which  are  so  absolutely  essential  to  the  highest  success  in  any 
scientific  work,  and  especially  in  that  of  a  great  national  observatory. 
The  observatory  thus  becomes  an  astronomical  power  that  makes  an  in- 
delible impress  upon  the  age.  If  the  policy  is  ever  a  mistaken  one,  the 
astronomical  superintendent  will  find  it  out  more  quickly  and  surely 
than  any  business  man  can. 

Objections  to  Skilled  Superintendence  Considered. 

Arguments  have  been  presented  on  the  other  side  of  this  question, 
between  skilled  arid  unskilled  superintendence.  Some  of  these  have 
been  met  in  the  foregoing  remarks.  It  is  desirable,  perhaps,  that  still 
others  should  receive  attention. 

"  It  is  to  be  feared,"  says  the  late  Admiral  John  Rodgers,  Superin- 
tendent, "  that  a  national  observatory  open  to  the  whole  body  of 
American  astronomers,  would  gravitate  into  the  political  arena,  where 
mere  unobtrusive  merit  would  avail  less  than  sectional  partialities,  or 
specious  pleading  supported  by  personal  preferences."  (Number  13  of 
papers  accompanying  the  Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1877.) 

In  this  connection,  it  seems  pertinent  to  inquire  whether  the  Navy  is 
more  free  from  the  operation  of  personal  preferences  and  favoritism  than 
are  the  civilian  scientific  bureaus  of  Government.  It  is  confidently 
asserted  that  the  civilian  scientific  bureaus  have  been  remarkably  free 
from  partisan  influences.  With  extremely  rare  exceptions,  scientific 
men  in  positions  of  administrative  responsibility,  have  sturdily 
defended  the  right  and  advisability  of  making  appointments  and  pro- 
motions in  scientific  work  under  their  charge,  solely  on  the  basis  of 
personal  and  professional  merit.  That  position  has  been  almost 
invariably  respected  and  supported  by  the  higher  executive  powers.  It 
is  a  notable  fact  of  observation  and  remark,  that  the  most  intense  parti- 
sans in  Congress,  and  in  positions  of  executive  responsibility,  have  been 
among  the  most  generous  and  intelligent  of  public  men  in  regard  to 
the  non-partisan  administration  of  scientific  work.  Scientific  men  seem 
to  be  regarded  as  non-combatants  in  the  political  arena,  arid  are  treated 
accordingly.  The  assertion  may  be  safely  ventured  that  the  Coast 
Survey  and  Geological  Bureau  contain  as  large  a  proportion  of  "  unob- 
trusive merit "  among  their  employes,  as  the  Naval  Observatory  con- 
tains, and  that  it  would  be  as  difficult  to  discover  political  motives  in 
the  appointments  to  the  former  as .  in  the  latter.  There  is  no  reason 
whatever  for  fearing  that  a  different  rule  would  prevail  in  regard  to  an 
astronomical  observatory  under  civilian  control. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  document  prepared  by  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Naval  Observatory  in  1877  (Report  of  the  Secretary  of 
the  Navy,  accompanying  papers,  No.  13)  illustrate  criticisms  in  ref- 
erence to  the  superintendence  of  a  large  observatory  by  an  astronomer, 
which  have  been  brought  forward  in  this  controversy  : 


52 

"  The  statement  may,  perhaps,  be  hazarded  that  authors,  inventors, 
musicians,  are  naturally  jealous  of  each  others'  professional  reputation. 
It  may  be  feared  that  mathematicians  and  astronomers  are  not  free 
from  the  same  weakness ;  and  so  far  as  this  is  true,  so  far  would  its 
existence  militate  against  harmony  and  efficiency."  (Admiral  Rodgers.) 

*  #     *     "  No  scientific  man  can  afford  to  step  from  the  ranks  of 
scientific  workers  into  such  a  position  [as  Superintendent  of  the  observ- 
atory] unless  he  hopes  to  build  up  his  reputation  upon  the  labor  of 
others."     *     *     *     "There  are  few  eminent  astronomers  who  have  not 
made  their  reputation  by  the  cultivation  of  some  specialty  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  almost  everything  else ;   and  were  such  a  man  made  Superin- 
tendent of  the  observatory,  there  would  be  great  danger  that  the  whole 
force  of  the  establishment  would  be  employed  in  advancing  his  specialty ; 
thus  preventing  his  assistants  from  engaging  in  other  work  of  equal  or 
perhaps  greater  importance,  and  greatly  limiting  the  scope  of  the  insti- 
tution."    (Letter  of  majority  professors  to. the  Superintendent.) 

It  is  fair  to  infer  that  Admiral  Rodgers  (who  discusses  the  subject  in 
a  fair-minded  way  with  predilections  in  favor  of  superintendence  by  an 
astronomer)  had  gained  his  experience  in  regard  to  the  ways  of  scien- 
tific men  at  the  Naval  Observatory,  of  which  he  was  then  the  honored 
Superintendent.  It  is  pertinent  to  inquire  whether  there  is  anything  in 
the  system  of  administration  at  the  Naval  Observatory  which  should 
lead  to  the  expression  of  opinions  by  astronomers*,  so  much  at  variance 
with  those  which  are  generally  entertained  in  the  profession  elsewhere. 
It  is  quite  as  easy  to  suppose  there  was  something  of  this  kind  as  it  is 
to  believe  that  the  members  of  a  profession  engaged  in  the  noblest  of 
intellectual  pursuits  are  universally  actuated  by  petty  motives  and  self- 
ish interests.  It  may  be  admitted  that  astronomers  are  no  better  in 
these  respects  than  are  lawyers,  physicians,  clergymen,  or  naval  officers  ; 
but  to  say  that  they  are  not  capable  of  self-government  among 
themselves  is  to  ignore  the  testimony  of  experience  in  the  great  as  well 
as  in  the  small  national  observatories  of  other  lands.  There  is  abso- 
lutely no  escape  from  the  logic  of  this  experience  except  in  saying  that 
these  charges  apply  to  American  astronomers  only.  One  may  admit, 
with  the  Superintendent,  that  troubles  of  an  analogous  nature  are  not 
unknown  among  professional  musicians.  Yet  no  one  appears  to  have 
thought  of  a  remedy  like  that  which  would  be  implied  in  placing  a 
naval  officer  at  the  head  of  the  Observatory.  Whenever  a  great  orches- 
.tra  proves  inharmonious  in  either  sense  of  the  word,  the  remedy  which 
is  always  applied,  whenever  the  public  demand  for  music  is  strong 
enough  to  warrant  it,  is  to  put  the  refractory  orchestra  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  ablest  musical  director  that  available  funds,  or  patronage, 
will  warrant. 

*  Two  of  the  Professors,  Simon  Newcomb,  Superintendent  of  the  Nautical  Alm- 
anac,  and  Edward  S.   Holden,  now  director  of  the  Lick  Observatory  in  California, 
did  not  join  in  these  views  of  their  five  colleagues,  but  wrote  letters  to  the  Superin- 
tendent,  strongly   advocating   scientific    control  for  the   Observatory.     It    is  also 
believed   that  the   views  of  some  of  the  other  professors  were  subsequently  very 
much  modified. 


53 

It  is  further  evident  that  the  live  majority  professors  did  not  want 
any  superintendent  at  all,  except  a  non-astronomical  one  who  should,  as 
they  express  it  later  in  their  letter,  "look  after  the  business  affairs  of 
the  institution,  thus  leaving  the  scientific  corps  leisure  for  their  proper 
work."  This  would  undoubtedly,  in  some  respects,  prove  an  agreeable 
arrangement  for  those  who  suppose  that  a  Government  observatory  exists, 
not  in  response  to  a  public  demand,  but  for  the  personal  gratification  of 
the  astronomers  who  happen  to  be  employed  therein,  'the  theory  of  a 
Government  observatory  has  already  been  sufficiently  considered.  A 
national  observatory  exists,  because  the  public  at  large  desires  that  the 
nation  shall  bear  its  share  in  contributing  to  the  intelligence  of  the 
world  in  a  field  which  is  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  fascinating  that  can 
engage  the  attention  of  mankind.  At  the  same  time  this  public  relies 
on  the  assurance  from  astronomers  that  there  is  a  large  class  of  laborious 
operations  in  the  most  important  fields  of  research  which  are  very  sure 
to  be  neglected,  if  left  to  the  care  of  private  enterprise.  It  is  not  for 
the  assistants,  nor  even  for  the  director,  to  dictate  what  work  a  national 
observatory  shall  do.  The  work  is  imposed  upon  the  observatory  by  the 
logic  of  scientific  events ;  and  for  that  reason,  especially,  the  director 
must  be  a  well-trained  and  experienced  astronomer,  in  order  properly  to 
perceive  and  interpret  this  logic.  In  nearly  all  countries  having  large 
observatories,  he  has  a  commission,  or  "  board  of  visitors,"  to  aid  him  in 
the  performance  of  this  duty,  arid  to  control  him  in  this  respect  if  his 
judgment  be  deemed  at  fault.  In  accepting  the  office  and  emoluments 
of  a  Government  astronomer,  whether  subordinate  or  chief,  the  astrono- 
mer takes  upon  himself  the  obligation  to  labor  faithfully  in  the  interest 
of  this  public  demand. 

It  is  quite  probable  that  an  "  eminent  astronomer  "  would  actually  desire 
to  make  some  distinct  and  possibly  unique  impression  through  the  com- 
bined labors  over  which  he  might  have  the  control.  He  would  not  wait  for 
other  observatories  to  point  out  the  work  he  ought  to  do,  nor  fritter  the 
energies  confided  to  his  management  in  doing  the  work  which  is  as  well, 
or  better  (and  sufficiently),  done  elsewhere.  Nor  is  there  the  least 
danger  that  an  able  specialist  will  dragoon  unwilling  assistants  of  high 
rank  to  labor  in  his  own  lines.  He  well  knows  that  responsible  work  in 
science  cannot  be  well  done  by  the  man  who  is  not  able  to  put  some 
heart  in  it. 

The  majority  professors,  in  common  with  other  advocates  of  the 
present  system  of  the  Naval  Observatory,  make  much  of  the  business 
duties  of  the  superintendent.  They  cannot  be  neglected  ;  but  it  is 
difficult  to  believe  that  they  can  be  more  onerous  than  the  corresponding 
responsibilities  of  the  Coast  Survey  or  Geological  Bureau.  The  super- 
intendents of  these  establishments  have  been  specially  complimented  by 
committees  of  Congress  (Senate  Reports,  49th  Cong.,  1st  Session ;  No. 
1285,  p.  52 ;  and  elsewhere)  upon  the  ability  and  efficiency  with  which 


54 

they  have  discharged  this  part  of  their  duties ;  yet  there  has  been  no 
lack  of  attention  to  their  scientific  duties  ;  arid  it  is  not  known  or 
believed  that  the  chiefs  of  either  of  these  important  bureaus  have  at  any 
time  considered  it  necessary  to  recoup  themselves  for  time  spent  in  the 
multifarious  business  duties  of  their  offices  by  stealing  the  credit  due  to 
their  subordinates. 

The  Question  of  Comparative  Expense. 

Against  proposed  superintendence  of  our  Government  observatory 
by  an  astronomer  has  been  urged  the  fear  that  the  "  expenses  would  be 
largely  augmented."  It  is  impossible  to  consider  the  matter  of  expen- 
diture apart  from  that  which  is  produced  as  the  result  of  expenditure. 
Whether  the  expenses  of  the  Observatory  shall  be  increased  or  dimin- 
ished under  a  civilian  administration  depends  entirely  upon  the  will  of 
the  people,  expressed  through  their  representatives  in  Congress,  as  to 
the  amount  and  quality  of  astronomical  product  which  is  desirable  that 
this  nation  shall  contribute  to  the  world's  common  stock  of  scientific 
knowledge.  The  value  of  that  product  cannot  be  measured  by  the  array 
of  figures  and  the  number  of  pages  in  publications.  If  it  is  considered 
sufficient  that  our  G-overnmeiit  observatory  shall,  hereafter,  simply 
maintain  its  present  scientific  standing,  and  contribute  astronomical 
results  of  not  much  more  intrinsic  value  than  those  which  have  hitherto 
emanated  from  the  Naval  Observatory  during  like  periods,  then 
every  experienced  astronomer  in  the  country  (who  is  free  to  speak), 
would  unite  in  the  prediction  that  expenses  would  be  reduced  under  the 
administration  of  a  competent  astronomer.  The  separation  of  the  func- 
tions of  the  present  establishment  in  such  a  manner,  that  the  rating  of 
the  chronometers  and  similar  duties  shall  be  carried  on  at  a  naval 
observatory  in  charge  of  a  naval  officer,  assisted  by  naval  officers,  and 
that  the  scientific  duties,  both  theoretical  and  practical,  shall  be  per- 
formed at  an  astronomical  observatory  in  charge  of  a  competent 
astronomer  with  a  civilian  organization,  would  unquestionably  result  in 
greater  efficiency  and  economy  of  service. 

In  support  of  these  assertions,  two  pertinent  comparisons  may  be 
instituted.  The  Argentine  National  Observatory  was  established  in 
1872,  ready  for  work.  Its  directors  and  assistants  had  been  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  and  received  liberal  salaries  for  their  service.  Every 
competent  astronomer  must  join  in  the  statement  that  the  results 
achieved  by  the  Argentine  Observatory,  at  Cordoba,  during  the  period 
from  its  foundation  to  1885,  were  much  greater  in  quantity  and  certainly 
not  inferior  in  quality,  as  compared  with  the  corresponding  results  pro- 
duced by  the  United  States  Naval  Observatory  during  any  similar 
period  of  its  history.  Yet  the  annual  expenditure  at  the  Cordoba 
Observatory  averaged  less  than  $21,000,  including  sums  expended  for 
somejbuildings  and  instruments  additional  to  those  originally  provided. 


55 

The  current  expenditures  for  the  Naval  Observatory,  during  this  same 
period  (1872-1885),  exclusive  of  the  salary  of  the  superintendent  and 
of  line  officers  of  the  Navy,  amounted  to  fully  $42,000  per  annum.  (See 
Note  B,  appended.)  The  total  expenditures  for  the  Argentine  Obser- 
vatory were,  in  fact,  less  than  the  sums  appropriated  to  the  Naval 
Observatory,  during  the  same  period,  for  the  pay  of  a  few  civilian 
assistants,  for  labor,  and  for  general  expenses,  and  excluding  the 
the  amounts  paid  for  salaries  of  the  six  or  seven  principal  astronomers. 
(See  appended  Note  B.)  But  it  may  be  objected  that  this  was  a  sort  of 
expeditionary  tour  de  force  (though  it  lasted  nearly  fifteen  years),  and  that 
the  work  of  an  observatory  cannot  habitually  be  kept  at  such  high  tension. 
The  Greenwich  Observatory  offers  a  standard  of  comparison  which  is 
not  open  to  this  objection. 

The  output  of  scientific  observations  from  the  Greenwich  Observatory 
has  certainly  been  larger  and  better  than  it  has  been  at  the  Washington 
Observatory  in  corresponding  periods.  A  comparison  between  the  ex- 
penditures of  these  two  observatories  is  therefore  not  unfair  to  the  Naval 
Observatory.  In  the  Appendix  to  the  Greenwich  Observations  for  1873 
(published  in  1875)  the  annual  grant  to  the  Royal  Observatory  for  all 
purposes  is  stated  to  be  usually  about  £6,000  (or  say  $29,200).  The 
Astronomer  Royal  receives  £1,000  per  annum  ;  the  chief  assistant,  from 
£500  to  £600  ;  the  three  assistants  next  in  rank,  £320  to  £450 ;  five  as- 
sistants of  junior  grade,  £180  to  £300.  The  sum  of  £600  per  annum 
was  expended  for  the  services  of  computers  in  the  discretion  of  the 
Astronomer  Royal.  "  A  laborer,  a  watchman  and  a  gate  porter  are  also 
employed."  It  appears  that  the  total  resources  of  the  Naval  Observa- 
tory in  the  period,  1867  to  1879,  excluding  pay  of  superintendent, 
(which  at  Greenwich  amounts  to  nearly  $5,000),  and  excluding  the  pay 
of  line  officers  on  duty  at  the  Observatory  as  assistants,  amounted  to  an 
average  of  $39,875  per  annum.  This  is  36  per  cent  greater  than  the 
corresponding  amount  for  the  Greenwich  Observatory,  and  is  quite 
sufficient  to  allow  for  the  difference  in  scale  of  salaries  in  the  two 
countries,  which  such  services  command,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  above 
quoted  list.  The  practical  duties  for  the  public  service  performed  by 
the  Greenwich  Observatory,  such  as  rating  chronometers  for  the  English 
navy,  public  time  service,  and  the  like,  were  certainly  as  great  as  those 
performed  by  the  line  officers  on  duty  at  the  Naval  Observatory ;  and 
if  the  value  of  these  services  had  been  subtracted  from  the  Greenwich 
account  as  they  here  are  from  that  of  the  Washington  Observatory,  the 
showing  would  have  been  much  more  unfavorable  to  the  latter. 

The  account  for  labor  and  general  services  at  the  Naval  Observatory, 
in  comparison  with  the  corresponding  account  for  Greenwich,  suggests 
a  promising  field  for  retrenchment.  It  appears  from  the  appropriation 
bill  for  1882  and  subsequent  years,  that  there  were  employed,  one  fourth- 
class  clerk,  an  instrument-maker,  two  skilled  laborers,  three  watchmen, 


56 

and  seven  laborers, — fourteen  persons  in  all,  as  compared  with  three 
for  like  services  at  the  Greenwich  Observatory.  » It  is  probable  that  a 
part  of  this  difference  is  not  real — the  clerical  service  at  Greenwich 
coming  in  as  part  of  the  duty  of  the  astronomical  service,  perhaps,  and 
that  for  instrumental  repairs  out  of  the  general  contingent  fund  ;  but  it 
is  not  easy  to  find  the  reason  for  this  remarkable  disproportion  of 
laborers. 

The  plans  for  the  new  observatory  point  to  the  necessity  for  a  very 
large  increase  in  these  forms  of  expenditure  in  the  future. 

Full  responsibility  for  the  details  of  work  finally  centers  upon  the 
man  who  directs  the  labors  of  individual  workers  —  upon  the  Superin- 
tendent of  the  Arsenal,  or  Navy  yard,  of  the  military  post,  or  of  the 
vessel  of  war,  of  the  Coast  Survey,  the  Medical  bureau,  or  the  astronomi- 
cal observatory.  It  is  a  responsibility  which  cannot  be  further  dele- 
gated or  evaded.  It  can  only  be  exercised  with  advantage  by  the  man 
who  is  professionally  conversant  with  the  details  of  the  work.  Especially 
where  all,  or  nearly  all,  the  workers  must  be  men  of  special  professional 
attainments,  is  the  necessity  of  professional  superintendence  more 
urgent.  This  statement  is  so  true,  and  its  truth  is  so  universally 
recognized  in  ordinary  affairs,  that  the  utterance  of  it,  even  in  this  dis- 
puted connection,  seems  like  a  platitude,  for  which  there  would  be  no 
excuse  but  for  the  fact  that  its  applicability  is  practically  denied  in  the 
administration  of  the  Observatory. 

SECTION  VIII. —  REFORM  NEEDED  IN  THE  SYSTEM  OF  EMPLOYMENT  AT 

THE  NAVAL  OBSERVATORY. 

The  reform  really  demanded  at  the  Observatory,  should  go  much 
deeper  than  the  question  as  to  what  manner  of  man  ought  to  be  its 
directing  head.  The  entire  system  of  naval  organization  is  unfavor- 
able to  the  interests  and  efficiency  of  an  astronomical  establishment. 
At  best  not  many  men  can  be  supported  by  the  Government,  or  from 
private  endowments,  for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  scientific  investiga- 
tions, even  when  these  concern  the  every  day  needs  of  mankind.  It 
will  never  be  necessary  to  impress  into  this  service  the  few  men  who  are 
needed,  nor  to  hold  them  to  it  by  the  bonds  of  military  discipline.  The 
opportunity  to  engage  in  scientific  work  as  a  profession  is  something 
that  a  few  men,  here  and  there,  will  strive  for  as  other  men  strive  for 
money  or  political  power.  The  more  responsible  posts  in  scientific  work, 
both  theoretical  and  applied,  should  be  reserved  by  those  who  have 
the  power  to  award  them,  as  the  prizes  of  distinguished  merit.  This 
has  been  the  policy  of  all  the  great  European  Governments ;  and  any 
other  tends  to  restrict  the  science  of  a  country  within  provincial  limits. 
There  will  be  110  dearth  of  worthy  applicants  for  scientific  positions  of 
any  grade,  even  if  the  rates  of  compensation  be  moderate,  provided  the 


57 

Government  arranges  efficient  and  vital  organization,  and  offers  a 
reasonable  assurance  that  promotion  shall  be  based  upon  the  combined 
claims  of  zealous  industry  and  the  growth  of  professional  attainment. 
It  should  be  a  high  honor  to  occupy  a  prominent  position  on  the 
Observatory  staff,  arid  it  would  be  so  considered  under  a  proper 
organization. 

These  principles  are  violated  in  the  organization  of  the  Naval 
Observatory.  The  professors  of  mathematics  designed  for  duty  at  the 
Observatory  are  commissioned  as  staff  officers  in  the  Navy.  They  are 
usually  appointed  at  a  time  in  their  professional  career  (and  occasionally 
before  they  have  any  professional  experience),  when  it  is  impossible  to 
foresee  what  capacity  for  independent  scientific  work  of  the  higher 
order,  they  will  develop.  Yet,  once  appointed,  the  technical  rank  and 
the  actual  emolument  to  which  they  can  attain  is  rigidly  mapped  out 
for  the  remainder  of  life  in  the  service.  They  are  beyond  the  reach  of 
external  stimulus.  In  many  cases  professional  pride  will  act  as  an 
incentive ;  if  they  have  the  true  scientific  spirit,  the  interest  of  work 
will  sufficiently  stimulate,  but  whether  it  does  or  not,  the  material 
reward  is  the  same.  Those  unfortunate  divergencies  in  personal 
capacity  and  quality  may  so  operate  in  the  case  of  two  astronomers  who 
are  equally  earnest,  and  who  may  seem  to  start  on  an  equal  footing,  in 
a  manner  such  that  one  shall  quickly  mount  the  ladder  of  scientific 
attainment  to  the  highest  point,  while  the  other  may  remain  at  the  foot. 
It  is  absurd  that  the  material  rewards  should  be  the  same. 

The  arguments  which  bear  upon  the  system  of  promotions  in  the 
Army  and  Navy  do  not  apply  in  a  service  where  so  much  depends  upon 
a  special  form  of  intellectual  vigor  and  capacity.  The  arguments 
which  advocate  a  secure  tenure  of  office  during  efficiency  and  good 
behavior  cannot,  in  the  case  of  astronomers,  be  extended  so  as  to  cover 
promotion  for  longevity  alone.  There  is  no  excuse  -for  this  system  as 
applied  in  the  Observatory,  except  to  found  the  quibble  that  the  princi- 
pal astronomers  at  the  Observatory  are  naval  officers. 

A  great  national  observatory  such  as  the  Naval  Observatory  is  evidently 
designed  to  be,  should  be  enabled  to  draw  upon  the  entire  country  for 
the  available  material  in  astronomers,  which  circumstances  may  render 
it  unable  to  supply  from  its  own  personnel.  Among  the  astronomical 
enterprises  which  such  an  observatory  should  desire  to  carry  on,  are  some 
that  may  require  special  training  and  experience  of  a  high  order. 
When  such  an  undertaking  is  interrupted  by  the  accident  of  death  or 
resignation  of  its  actual  conductor,  it  will  frequently  happen  that  there 
is  no  one  in  the  observatory  staff  able  to  take  up  the  interrupted  work  in 
a  proper  manner,  while  it  will  as  frequently  happen  that  exactly  the 
right  man  for  the  work  can  be  had  elsewhere.  Unless  the  organization  of 
the  observatory  is  such  that  when  the  necessity  arises  new  men  may  be 
introduced  in  any  grade  where  it  would  be  most  advantageous  for  the 


58 

interests  of  the  observatory  to  place  them,  it  will  fail  in  that  most  essen- 
tial requisite  of  a  national  observatory,  the  ability  to  prosecute  a  pro- 
longed investigation  continuously  without  sensible  loss  of  efficiency  at 
any  time.  In  this  respect,  the  present  organization  of  the  Naval  Obser- 
vatory conspicuously  fails. 

CONCLUSION. 

It  may  seem  surprising  that  a  system  of  organization  so  manifestly 
unsuited  to  the  wants  of  a  scientific  institution  has  endured  so  long. 
This  is  not  so  much  due  to  the  lack  of  complaint  from  astronomers,  as  it 
is  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Observatory  has  been  developed  without 
legislation  expressly  defining  its  objects.  In  a  military  department,  with 
subordinates  subject  to  order,  and  transfer  of  service  at  will,  it  is  easy  to 
encroach  upon  the  prerogatives  of  legislation  and  to  build  up  what  are 
virtually  new  institutions  without  express  permission  from  Congress. 
Such,  in  great  measure,  was  the  early  history  of  the  Geological  and 
Geographical  Surveys  by  the  Army,  as  well  as  of  the  Army  Weather 
Service.  The  Army  and  Navy  have  facilities  which  enable  them  to  start 
such  enterprises  without  attracting  much  attention  They  can  inaugurate 
an  observatory  through  the  device  of  building  a  "  house  for  charts,"  and 
stock  it  with  instruments  from  a  general  contingent  fund  for  instruments 
for  the  Navy.  They  can  then  man  it  with  their  own  officers,  requiring 
no  special  appropriation  at  first.  Later  they  can  show  that  the  efficiency 
of  the  establishment  would  be  increased  if  a  few  civilian  assistants  were 
allowed ;  and  thus,  from  small  beginnings,  build  up  an  extensive  estab- 
lishment through  the  power  and  skill  of  organization.  To  be  sure,  so 
far  as  special  appropriations  may  be  necessary,  Congress,  in  the  act  of 
granting  them,  does  virtually  sanction  the  objects  to  which  they  are 
devoted.  But  this  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  kind  of  authoriza- 
tion which  ought  to  be  accorded  to  a  new  enterprise.  In  granting  an 
appropriation  to  an  existing  establishment,  the  inquiry  is  usually,  not  so 
much  whether  the  institution  ought  to  be  supported  at  all,  or  whether  it 
is  conducted  as  it  ought  to  be,  as  it  is, — what  was  the  appropriation  last 
year,  and  why  is  more  wanted  this  year. 

This  facility,  while  it  is  necessary  in  operations  concerning  the  mili- 
tary, is  pernicious  when  applied  to  civil  administration.  The  extension 
of  military  control  to  matters  which  have  no  relation  to  military  effi- 
ciency is,  indeed,  highly  obnoxious  to  good  government,  as  Americans 
regard  it.  Much  evidence  exists  that  Congress  looks  with  disfavor  on 
this  form  of  control  in  matters  which  are  essentially  not  military.  More 
than  ten  years  ago  the  geological  and  geographical  survey  in  the  West, 
which  was  conducted  by  the  Army,  was  taken  from  that  department 
and  consolidated  with  others  to  form  a  civilian  bureau.  This  year  the 
Weather  Bureau  of  the  Army  Signal  Corps  has  been  transferred  to 
civilian  management.  This  transfer  grew  out  of  a  long-continued  agi- 


tation  in  which  the  investigation  of  1884-6,  by  a  joint  commission  of 
both  Houses  of  Congress,  may  be  considered  to  have  been  the  decisive 
feature.  The  controversy  was  precisely  of  the  nature  that  now  exists 
between  astronomers  and  the  naval  representatives  of  the  Observatory, 
except  that  the  arguments  for  placing  the  Observatory  under  technical  and 
civilian  control  are  much  more  conclusive  than  in  a  case  like  that  of  the 
Weather  service.  The  subject-matter  of  investigation  related  to  details 
of  operation  in  certain  scientific  bureaus  of  Government — to  supposed  du- 
plication of  work  and  functions — rather  than  to  general  principles  of 
administration.  Nevertheless,  the  report  of  the  commission,  of  which 
Hon.  William  B.  Allison  was  chairman,  contains  some  reflections  upon 
the  general  principles  which  ought  to  govern  in  the  conduct  of  scientific 
work  by  the  Government.  One  point  upon  which  the  commission  ap- 
pears to  have  been  unanimous  is  pertinent  to  the  present  occasion.  This 
point  is  very  succinctly  expressed  in  the  minority  report  which  was 
signed  by  Hon.  John  T.  Morgan,  Hon.  Hilary  A.  Herbert,  and  Hon.  John 
T.  Tait.  They  say  : 

"As  a  question  of  proper  civil  administration,  it  seems  clear  to  the 
commission,  as  appears  in  the  general  report,  that  it  is  not  good  govern- 
ment to  put  a  branch  of  the  service  that  has  no  necessary  relation  to  mil- 
itary affairs  under  the  regimen  of  a  military  establishment  and  under 
military  organization  and  command."  (Senate  Reports,  No.  1,285,  p. 
59  ;  49th  Cong.,  1st  session.) 

On  its  own  account  the  minority  also  says : 

"  It  is  not  consistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  Government  that  the  mili- 
tary should  dominate  the  civil  power  in  any  case  where  such  a  danger- 
ous course  of  administration  can  be  avoided."  (Ibid.,  p.  59.) 

With  the  ordinary  operations  of  the  Navy  Department,  astronomers 
have  no  more  concern  than  any  other  class  of  citizens.  They  would 
ordinarily  have  no  more  occasion  to  be  exercised  over  the  administration 
of  a  depot  of  charts  than  those  of  other  professions.  But  when  this 
"  depot  "  is  discovered  to  be  an  astronomical  observatory,  which  assumes 
to  represent  American  astronomy  and  employs  a  large  staff  of  profes- 
sional astronomers  in  pure  scientific  investigation,  it  becomes  not  only 
the  right  but  the  duty  of  astronomers  to  interfere,  if,  in  their  judgment, 
the  interests  of  astronomy  and  the  country  require  it. 

From  the  account  of  the  early  history  of  the  Naval  Observatory,  it  is 
evident  that  astronomers  did  make  an  effort  to  secure  a  proper  scientific 
organization  for  the  Government  observatory.  There  is  evidence  that 
this  sentiment  was  alive  in  1854,  when  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  in 
response  to  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  the  proper  name  for  the  observatory 
wrote : 

"  It  is  a  Navy  affair,  and  its  reputation  is  the  property  of  the  Navy. 
If  it  assume  another  name  and  character,  the  next  step  will  be  to  place 
a  civilian  at  its  head."  (Letter  of  Dec.  12, 1854.  See  Report  of  National 
Academy  of  Sciences  for  1885,  p.  64.) 


60 

The  number  of  practical  astronomers  in  America  in  those  days  was 
small,  and  they  could  exert  but  a  feeble  influence.  There  were  few 
observatories  in  the  land,  and,  with  one  exception,  they  had  no  inde- 
pendent income.  Within  the  past  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  there  has 
been  a  great  change  in  this  respect.  There  are  now  in  the  United 
States  nine  or  ten  observatories  that  are  supported  from  special  endow- 
ments or  from  public  funds ;  and  in  addition  to  these,  a  number  of  uni- 
versity and  college  observatories  where  the  professors  in  charge  have 
opportunity  to  carry  on  work  of  investigation  in  addition  to  that  of 
instruction.  The  antagonism  to  superintendence  of  the  Government 
observatory  by  a  Naval  officer,  has,  therefore,  become  more  pronounced 
arid  aggressive,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  the  astronomical  interest 
in  the  country.  This  antagonism  has  been  marked  during  the  past 
fifteen  years,  though  thus  far  without  evident  effect.  The  distinguished 
character  of  many  of  the  superintendents  of  the  Naval  Observatory, 
when  it  was  the  practice  to  detail  officers  of  high  rank  to  that  duty, 
undoubtedly  served  to  restrain  the  protests  of  astronomers,  though  not 
to  silence  them.  These  appointments  gave  the  incumbents  shore  duty 
pay  at  the  seat  of  Government,  a  comfortable  residence,  a  stable,  a 
garden,  and  perhaps  other  desirable  perquisites.  It  is  not  likely  that 
the  public  would  have  applauded  what  might  have  been  improperly 
construed  as  personal  attacks  upon  these  distinguished  men. 

Nevertheless,  in  1865  and  again  in  1867,  the  earlier  administration  of 
the  Observatory  was  sharply  criticised  by  American  astronomers  of  high 
rank,  in  articles  addressed  to  the  public*.  In  1877  naval  administration 
at  the  Observatory  was  put  on  the  defensive,  as  previously  shown.  In 
1882-3  the  struggle  assumed  definite  shape  and  the  controversy  made 
some  stir  in  the  public  press.  In  1885,  the  National  Academy  of 
Sciences,  in  response  to  a  request  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  its 
opinion  in  regard  to  the  proposed  removal  of  the  Observatory  to  a  new 
site  presented  an  elaborate  reportf  upon  the  subject  of  the  organization 
of  the  Naval  Observatory,  in  which  the  present  system  is  arraigned  and 
unequivocally  condemned, — urging  at  the  same  time  in  emphatic  terms 
that  a  change  to  skilled  superintendence  be  made  a  condition  pre- 
cedent to  the  removal.  Petitions  to  like  effect  have  been  sent  to  the 
Navy  Department  from  various  representative  educational  institutions, 
such  as  Harvard  College,  Johns  Hopkins  University  and  others.  Out- 
side the  Naval  Observatory  the  sentiment  of  the  scientific  men  of  the 
country  is  practically  unanimous  in  favor  of  the  change. 

*The  National  Almanac  for  I<s64,  by  Dr.  B.  A.  Gould;  North  American  Review, 
Vol.  105  (editorially),  by  Professor  Simon  Newcomb,  U.  S.  N. 

fSee  Report  of  the  National  Academy  for  1885.  This  report  was  signed  by  F  A. 
P.  Barnard,  President  of  Columbia  College  ;  A.  Graham  Bell ;  J.  D.  Dana,  Professor 
in  Yale  College  and  Editor  of  the  American  Journal  of  Science ;  S.  P.  Langley, 
Director  of  the  Allegheny  Observatory  (now  Secretary  of  the  Smithsonian  Insti- 
tution) ;  Theodore  Lyman,  E.  C.  Pickering,  Director  of  the  Observatory  of  Harvard 
College  ;  and  C.  A.  Young,  Director  of  the  Halstead  Observatory,  Princeton. 


61 

Notwithstanding  these  and  many  other  protests,  it  has  not  been 
possible  for  astronomers  to  make  much  impression  upon  the  authorities 
of  Government  in  this  matter.  It  *is  difficult  for  the  few  astronomers 
scattered  over  the  country  and  absorbed  in  their  work,  to  make  effec- 
tive head  against  the  influences  interested  in  perpetuating  the  present 
system  at  the  Observatory.  But  the  justice  of  their  cause  will  insure 
their  persistence,  until  some  favorable  occasion  when  the  authorities  of 
Government  choose  to  examine  the  question  on  its  merits. 

There  is  no  longer  any  pretense  that  the  new  Observatory  is  not 
intended  to  fulfill  the  functions  elsewhere  exercised  by  great  national 
observatories.  In  1877,  the  Superintendent,  after  reviewing  the  work 
at  the  Observatory,  said  : 

"  It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  that  the  observatory  is  a  great 
national  institution,  and  that  within  its  sphere,  it  amply  returns,  both  in 
material  value  and  national  fame,  all  the  sums  expended  upon  it." 
{Report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  1877,  p.  319.) 

Whatever  was  true  in  regard  to  the  purely  astronomical  scope  of  the 
Naval  Observatory  in  1877,  will  be  true  in  a  much  greater  degree  of 
the  new  Observatory.  So  the  projectors  of  the  new  institution 
undoubtedly  intend,  for,  otherwise,  they  would  stand  convicted  of  the 
most  unpardonable  extravagance. 

If  confronted  with  the  issue,  it  is  believed  that  a  majority  of  the 
officers  of  the  Navy  would  concede  the  propriety  of  turning  the 
Observatory  over  to  those  who  know  how  to  manage  it.  It  is  not  sur- 
prising that  naval  officers,  who  have  been  or  who  wish  to  be  detailed  to 
the  Naval  Observatory,  should  strive  to  maintain  their  hold  on  that 
establishment.  The  duties  of  officers  stationed  at  the  Observatory  are 
not  believed  to  be  arduous.  It  must  be  pleasant  to  enjoy  the  period  of 
shore  duty  at  the  capital.  It  may,  therefore,  be  assumed  that  the  naval 
officers  of  the  Naval  Observatory  will  never  voluntarily  relinquish  their 
hold  npon  it.  It  appears  to  be  a  common  belief  that  even  Congress  can- 
not dispossess  them,  otherwise  than  by  the  most  explicit  legislation. 

Naval  officers  do  not  need  the  training  which  an  observatory  affords, 
any  more  than  the  clerks  in  the  civil  departments  do.  On  this  point, 
the  Committee  of  the  National  Academy  of  Sciences,  in  its  report  for 
1885,  well  remarks : 

"  There  is  already  an  observatory  at  Annapolis,  but  the  course  of 
instruction  pursued  at  .the  naval  school  there,  is  of  itself  evidence  how 
little  importance  is  considered  in  naval  education  to  attach  to  the  pro- 
cesses of  practical  astronomy  as  conducted  in  fixed  observatories.  All 
the  astronomical  training  which  the  naval  cadets  receive  is  confined  to 
the  principles  of  navigation  and  the  use  of  portable  reflecting  instru- 
ments. It  is  believed  that  the  observatory  of  the  academy  is  not  used 
at  all,  and  has  not  been  for  many  years,  and  the  neglect  of  it  would 
appear  to  show  that  the  naval  officers  stationed  there  have  not  the  time 


62 

to  occupy  themselves  with  subjects  so  far  outside  the  necessities  of  their 
professional  life." 

There  is,  indeed,  no  reason  why  naval  officers  should  not  furnish  time 
to  shipping  and  rate  the  chronometers  of  the  Navy.  They  should  be 
charged  with  whatever  duty  is  necessary  in  testing  nautical  instruments. 
The  connection  of  these  operations  with  the  duties  of  skilled  seamanship 
is  obvious.  There  seems  to  be  every  reason  why,  following  the  example 
of  the  German,  French,  Austrian  and  Italian  Governments,  our  Navy 
should  be  provided  with  a  small  establishment  adequate  for  this  pur- 
pose. The  necessary  expenditure  for  such  purpose  need  riot  be  a  twen- 
tieth of  that  for  the  new  Observatory.  If  the  old  observatory,  or  the 
observatory  at  Annapolis  be  utilized  for  the  purpose,  the  expense  would 
need  to  be  only  a  mere  trifle,  in  comparison  with  the  expenditure  in- 
curred for  the  new  Observatory.  There  would  be  no  occasion  for  the 
employment  of  skilled  civilian  assistants. 

It  would  be  of  great  advantage  to  the  interests  of  the  public  service, 
as  well  as  to  those  of  astronomy,  if  a  change  in  the  form  of  superintend- 
ence of  the  Government  observatory  could  be  made  at  once  and  a  civilian 
director  appointed.  The  arrangements  making  and  to  be  made  at  the 
new  Observatory  at  great  expenditure,  will  affect  its  future  efficiency  in  a 
marked  degree.  If  they  are  as  wisely  made  as  were  those  at  Pulkowa  fifty 
years  ago,  or  as  they  are  usually  made  under  the  direction  of  competent 
astronomers,  there  will  be  little  to  alter  or  regret.  If  they  are  made  in 
the  manner  wrhich  experience  proves  to  be  the  usual  rule  under  unskilled 
superintendence,  it  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  the  Government  may 
hereafter  be  burdened  with  a  cumbersome  plant,  unsuited  to  the  uses 
for  which  it  was  designed,  and  costly  in  its  maintenance.  For  the  first 
twenty  years  of  its  existence,  the  old  Observatory  was  handicapped  by 
the  character  of  its  equipment,  though  money  enough  had  been  expended 
to  have  supplied  essential  needs ;  and  for  the  remainder  of  its  history 
the  arrangements  were  far  from  satisfactory,  or,  indeed,  extremely  im- 
perfect, if  we  are  to  concede  the  necessity  for  the  expensive  alterations 
now  in  progress. 

In  fact,  the  arrangements  for  the  new  Observatory  ought  not  to  be 
carried  beyond  the  most  obvious  necessities  until  some  settled  policy  as  to 
scientific  work  has  been  formulated  by  competent  authority.  One  of 
the  ablest  American  astronomers  very  pungently  says  in  this  connection : 

"  To  build  an  observatory  before  knowing  what  it  is  going  to  do  is 
much  like  designing  a  machine-shop  and  putting  in  a  large  collection  of 
improved  tools  and  machinery  before  concluding  what  the  shop  is  to 
make,  and  what  are  the  conditions  of  the  market  open  to  its  product." 
(Professor  Newcomb  in  the  North  American  Review  for  August,  1881.) 

The  increasing  importance  of  astronomical  science  in  this  country ; 
the  rapidly  developing  intelligence  of -the  general  public  in  scientific 


63 

matters ;  and  the  tendencies  of  Government  in  dealing  with  scientific 
organizations  as  illustrated  during  the  past  fifteen  years  in  the  reorga- 
nization of  the  Geological  and  the  Weather  services ;  these  render  it 
certain  that  the  needed  reform  cannot  be  long  delayed.  This  time  of 
removal  from  the  old  to  the  new  Observatory  is  most  opportune  and 
appropriate  for  the  change.  It  is  best  for  all  interests  that  the  issue  be 
fairly  met  and  decided  now. 

The  experience  of  all  nations,  which  have  had  large  astronomical 
observatories  under  professional  superintendents,  demonstrates  that  the 
advantages  of  such  a  system  are  not  confined  to  the  work  of  the  observ- 
atory alone.  The  observatory  becomes  an  inspiration  to  astronomical 
science  throughout  the  land.  During  recent  years  our  Naval  Observ- 
tory  has  stood  constantly  in  an  attitude  of  defense  toward  astronomers ; 
while  by  them  it  has  usually  been  regarded  with  a  degree  of  disfavor 
such  as  is  implied  by  want  of  respect  for  its  scientific  standing  as  an 
institution.  It  is  not  natural  for  any  American  to  rest  satisfied  that  the 
observatory  which  is  so  generously  supported  by  the  United  States 
should  fail  to  occupy  a  commanding  position  in  astronomical  science,  and 
to  offer  a  leadership  which  all  astronomers  can  support  with  loyalty  and 
pride. 

It  has  been  said  that  science  knows  no  country,  and  in  a  certain  sense 
this  is  true.  Science  is  cosmopolitan  in  its  sympathies.  But  it  is  also 
true  that  one  of  the  most  effective  spurs  to  scientific  effort  is  a  strong 
national  pride.  The  astronomers  of  other  nations  are  strongly  influenced 
by  this  sentiment.  All  astronomers  rejoice  unreservedly  in  the  triumphs 
of  astronomical  research  and  discovery  wherever  they  are  achieved. 
They  are  ready  to  give  credit  impartially  where  crdit  is  due.  But 
every  friend  of  astronomy  finds  his  keenest  enjoyment  over  successes 
won,  in  the  knowledge  that  his  own  country,  more  than  any  other,  has 
contributed  to  win  them.  It  is  the  National  Observatory  that  must 
stand  as  the  most  conspicuous  representative  of  national  astronomy. 
All  Americans  would  like  to  feel  proud  of  their  National  Observatory. 
Let  it,  then,  be  placed  in  a  position  where  it  may  be  able  to  assume  the 
leadership  that  naturally  belongs  to  it. 


64 

NOTE  A. 

EXTRACTS  PROM   THE  REPORT   OF   HON.   FRANCIS  MALLORY,  FROM   THE 
COMMITTEE  ON  NAVAL  AFFAIRS,  TO  ACCOMPANY   HOUSE    BILL,  No. 

303,    IN    REFERENCE    TO    A    NEW     HOUSE     FOR    THE     DEPOT    OF    CHARTS 

OF  THE  NAVY.     27TH  CONGRESS,  2o  SESSION,  No.  449.     PRESENTED 
TO  THE  HOUSE,  MARCH  15,  1842. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  essential  portions  of  the  Report 
of  Hon.  Francis  Mallory,  from  the  Committe  on  Naval  Affairs,  which 
served  the  Navy  as  authority  for  organizing  and  providing  for  the  present 
Naval  Observatory : 

"  It  appears  from  the  statements  of  its  superintendent,  that  the  depot 
of  charts  and  instruments  was  established  in  1830.  The  duties  at  that 
time  required  were,  the  selection,  purchase,  repairs,  and  distribution  of 
all  the  instruments  and  charts  required  by  the  Navy,  and  to  render  useful 
the  hydrograpic  information  which  might  be  contributed  by  our  officers 
from  to  time. 

"  Since  its  organization,  the  Navy  has  not  only  been  furnished  with 
better  instruments  and  more  recent  charts,  at  a  greatly  less  original  cost 
than  before,  but  greater  care  has  been  observed  in  their  use,  consequent 
upon  the  regulations  of  the  depot,  making  the  masters  of  our  public  vessels 
directly  responsible  for  each  article  delivered  to  them.  *  *  *  * 

"  In  the  summer  of  1838,  the  honorable  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  directed 
the  Superintendent  to  make  a  constant  series  of  observations  in  as- 
tronomy, magnetism,  and  meteorology,  ordering  an  additional  number 
of  assistants,  and  granting  authority  for  the  purchase  of  all  necessary 
instruments. 

"  In  the  two  latter  sciences,  the  observations  are  made  tri-hourly, 
throughout  the  day  and  night,  and  from  year's  end  to  year's  end  ;  and, 
in  the  former,  the  average  number  of  observations  is  three  thousand 
annually.  *  *  *  * 

"  These  observations  are  intended  not  only  for  the  benefit  of  the  Navy, 
but  for  the  country  and  the  world.  *  *  *  * 

"  The  house  now  occupied,  and  the  observatory  connected  with  it,  are 
both  private  property.  The  former  is  inadequate  to  the  purpose  for 
which  it  is  intended,  and  from  its  possessing  no  accommodations  for  the 
officers  in  charge;  and  the  latter  is  unfit,  from  its  size,  and  unsafe  to  the 
valuable  instruments  it  contains. 

"  In  addition  to  the  saving  of  money  to  the  Government,  and  the  im- 
portance of  having  our  national  ships  furnished  with  the  most  perfect 
instruments  and  charts  of  the  most  recent  surveys,  it  is  unquestionably 
the  fact,  that  its  establishment  has  disseminated  information  in  the  Navy 
which  could  scarcely  have  been  attained  by  other  means.  The  assistants 
have  been  obliged,  in  the  pursuance  of  their  duties,  to  acquire  a  know- 
ledge of  new  instruments  and  new  charts,  whether  they  possessed  a  taste 
for  such  pursuits  or  not — a  knolwedge  which  cannot  fail  to  be  useful  in 
the  practice  of  their  profession. 

"  It  is  proposed  to  extend  its  usefulness  still  further ;  to  make  it  what 
it  should  become  in  the  existing  requirements  of  the  naval  service." 

[The  advantages  to  hydrography  are  then  considered.] 

"Astronomy. — We  are  indebted  to  other  nations  for  the  data  which 


65 

enable  our  ships  to  cross  the  ocean.  Not  only  has  the  Navy  failed  to 
contribute  to  the  common  stock  from  which  all  our  navigators  borrow, 
but  our  country  has  never  yet  published  an  observation  of  a  celestial 
body,  which  bore  the  impress  'by  authority;'  and  it  is  believed  that,  until 
the  observations  before  alluded  to  in  this  report,  none  have  ever  been 
directed  by  the  Government  which  can  be  considered  continuous. 

"  That  great  errors  exist  in  the  tabulated  places  of  the  heavenly 
bodies,  the  labors  of  astronomers  of  the  present  day  sufficiently  prove. 
Indeed,  all  who  were  at  all  curious  in  such  matters  could  not  have  failed 
to  remark  how  great  a  difference  there  was  between  the  observed  and 
computed  times  of  the  last  annular  eclipse  visible  in  the  United  States. 

u  Observatories,  though  not  expensive,  cannot  prosper  in  our  country 
until  we  can  obtain  rest  from  the  pursuit  of  mercantile  affairs,  or  their 
charge  is  undertaken  by  the  Government.  The  duties  are  confining ; 
if  properly  executed,  arduous ;  and  but  few  are  qualified  by  experience 
or  habits  to  undertake  them.  If  officers  can  be  found  with  taste  for 
such  duties,  an  observatory  will  give  more  information  to  the  world,  under 
a  military  organization,  in  one  year,  than  under  any  other  direction  in 
two. 

"  A  small  observatory  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  depot ;  without  it 
the  duties  cannot  be  performed.  The  present  tenement  was  erected  at 
private  expense,  of  slight  materials,  and  is  entirely  unsuited  to  the  wants 
of  the  Navy  or  the  protection  of  the  instruments.  From  defects  in  its 
original  construction,  a  considerable  portion  of  the  heavens  is  entirely 
obscured  to  the  observer.  Nor  can  these  defects  be  remedied  even  were 
the  building  worthy  of  alteration  ;  for  it  is  already  so  frail  that  its  doors 
have  been  blown  entirely  off  twice  during  this  winter,  leaving  the 
instruments  completely  exposed  to  the  weather.  The  Superintendent 
reports  that  it  is  unsafe  to  continue  so  much  valuable  property  in  such 
a  building  longer  than  the  ensuing  spring.  The  value  of  the  instru- 
ments and  charts  under  his  charge,  is  never  less  than  $60,000,  and  will 
be  greatly  increased  within  a  short  time." 

"Magnetism. — This  subject  is  scarcely  less  important  to  the  Navy 
than  astronomy.  Without  a  knowledge  of  the  variation  of  the  compass, 
none  but  coasting  craft  dare  venture  beyond  the  precincts  of  a  harbor ; 
yet  how  few  have  more  than  a  practical  knowledge  of  the  mode  of 
determining  its  amount.  *  *  * 

"  The  magnetic  observatories  which  were  established  by  the 
European  Governments  two  years  since,  and  which  have  a  location  in 
almost  every  part  of  the  world,  were  earnestly  recommended  to  us  by 
the  learned  men  of  England.  *  *  * 

"  Whatever  these  results  may  be,  the  Navy  is  deeply  interested  in 
them,  more  so  than  any  other  branch  of  society ;  and  shall  it  be  said 
that  we  have  appropriated  the  hard-earned  labors  of  others  to  benefit 
our  Navy  without  compelling  it  to  bear  its  portion  ?  " 

"Meteorology. —  To  be  a  good  judge  of  the  weather  is  considered  an 
important  qualification  for  a  seaman ;  the  safety  of  a  ship  and  her  crew 
may  depend  on  the  promptness  and  accuracy  of  his  judgment. 
Meteorology  has  been  more  generally  pursued  in  the  United  States  than 
any  other  of  the  physical  sciences.  *  *  *  Meteorological  observa- 
tions are  more  important  at  night  than  by  day,  because  of  their 
scarcity  hitherto ;  and  it  is  scarcely  to  be  expected  that  amateurs  can  be 
found  in  sufficient  numbers  to  make  all  the  required  observations. 


66 

Night  watching  iu  stormy  weather  finds  few  followers,  and  we  can  only 
hope  to  obtain  the  desired  information,  when  those  engaged  in  its  pur- 
suits have  duty  to  compel  a  flagging  inclination. 

"Deeming  an  establishment  of  this  description  essential  to  the 
welfare  of  the  Navy,  the  committee  report  the  accompanying  bill." 

NOTE. —  This  bill  did  not,  however,  pass.  The  bill  which  did  pass, 
originated  in  the  Senate,  but  was  identical  in  terms  with  that  which  the 
Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  reported  in  the  House  with  the  foregoing 
recommendation. 


NOTE  B. 

AVAILABLE  RESOURCES  OF  THE  NAVAL  OBSERVATORY  SINCE  JULY  1, 1867. 

The  greater  part  of  the  employees  at  the  Naval  Observatory  hold 
commissions  in  the  Navy,  and  their  salaries  and  allowances  are  paid 
from  the  general  appropriation.  Nothing  short  of  a  careful  compu- 
tation from  the  records  of  the  Navy  and  Treasury  Departments  would 
serve  to  furnish  an  accurate  account  of  expenditures  for  the  Obser- 
vatory. In  lieu  of  this  it  is  believed  that  fairly  good  estimates  can  be 
derived  from  consultation  of  the  reports  of  the  Observatory  and  the  Navy 
Register  as  to  personnel,  together  with  the  direct  annual  appropriations 
for  the  support  of  the  Observatory. 

In  order  to  get  a  clear  view  of  the  current  operating  expenses  of  the 
Observatory,  it  will  be  necessary  to  subtract  certain  items  found  in  the 
appropriation  bills.  Congress  made  large  appropriations  for  observing 
the  Transits  of  Venus  in  1874  and  1882,  which  were  expended  by  a 
commission  representing  several  scientific  bureaus  of  Government. 
These  have  no  connection  with  Observatory  appropriations,  and  may  be 
regarded  as  chargeable  to  national  astronomy  at  large.  But  some 
small  incidental  appropriations  for  the  Transit  of  Venus  operations  were 
included  in  the  appropriations  for  the  Observatory.  Consistency 
requires  that  these  should  be  excluded  from  the  account  of  current 
expenses.  Following  are  the  items  excluded,  in  order  to  ascertain  the 
regular  operating  expenses  of  the  Observatory. 

Great  Telescope  and  its  tower,  etc.,  1870-1874 $67,000 

Incidental  Transit  of  Venus,  as  explained,  1871-1 884,  16,950 

For  account  of  Hall's  second  Arctic  Expedition 5,000 

Watchman  for  the  new  observatory  to  July  1, 1891...  6,480 

New  observatory  to  July  1,1891 475,000 


Total  of  incidental  and  extraordinary   expenses 

1870-1891 $570,430 

The  account  of  expenses  here  considered  begins  with  July  1,  1867, 
and   ends  with  June  30,  1891.     After  the  revival  of  astronomy  in  1861 


67 


and  previous  to  1867  the  Observatory  may  be  regarded  as  having  been 
under  the  management  of  astronomers.  Previous  to  1867,  also,  the 
Observatory  was  charged  with  the  care  of  charts.  The  total  current 
expenses  of  the  Naval  Observatory  during  the  period,  1861  to  1867  were 
less  than  they  have  been  at  any  time  since. 

Direct  Appropriations  for  Civilian  Assistants,  Labor  and  General  Expen- 
ses, Including  Deficiencies. 


Fiscal  Year. 

Amount. 

Fiscal  Year. 

Amount. 

Fiscal  Year. 

Amount. 

1867-8 

$21,500 

1875-6     ...    . 

.  .     $17  500 

1883  4 

$26  138 

1868-9 

16,600 

1876-7     

21  300 

1884  5 

26  436 

1869-70    .... 

...      19,000 

1877-8  

21,000 

1885-6 

26  336 

1870-1  

...      19,800 

1878  9  

.  ..     22,100 

1886-7  . 

26  736 

1871-2  

...      22,300 

1879-80  

...     25,786 

1887-8 

26  136 

1872-3 

24  200 

1880  1 

24  537 

1888  9 

27  336 

1873  4      ... 

23,100 

1881-2  .  .  . 

26  936 

1889  90 

29  136 

1874-5    ...    . 

...      19,050 

1882-3  

28  764 

1890-1 

°9  050 

The  reports  of  the  Observatory  do  not  always  show  the  precise  dates 
when  newly  appointed  professors  reported  for  duty,  nor  the  exact  dates 
when  others  resigned,  were  transferred  to  other  duty,  or  were  retired. 
Notwithstanding  this  difficulty  the  average  number  of  professors  on 
duty  in  any  given  period  and  their  compensation,  exclusive  of  allow- 
ances, can  be  stated  with  sufficient  accuracy  for  the  purposes  of  this 
exhibit.  This  does  not  include  the  pay  of  professors  in  retirement. 
The  part  of  this  item  which  belongs  to  the  Observatory  account  amounts 
to  many  thousand  dollars. 

For  brevity  and  convenience,  the  entire  period  under  consideration 
will  be  divided  into  four  periods  of  six  years  each.  In  connection  with 
each  is  given  the  average  number  of  professors  on  duty  at  the  Observ- 
atory in  that  period ;  the  average  compensation  which  that  corps  received 
at  the  Observatory  ;  the  average  of  direct  appropriations  for  the  same 
interval,  taken  from  the  foregoing  table  ;  and  the  total,  which  may  be 
considered  as  the  total  income  of  the  Observatory,  exclusive  of  the 
amounts  paid  to  officers  of  the  line  for  salaries. 


PERIOD. 

No. 
Professors. 

Average  Pay 
of  Professors. 

Average  Direct 
Appropriation. 

For  Professors 
and  General 
Expenses. 

1867  1873  

7 

$16  010 

$20  567 

$36  580 

1873  1879  

8 

22,500 

20  675 

43  170 

1879  1885 

5 

14  610 

26  433 

41  040 

1885  1891     

5 

15  890 

27  455 

43  340 

For   reasons  already  stated,  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  ascertain  the 
exact  terms  of  service  of  officers  of  the  naval  line  at  the  Observatory 


with  the  exact  amount  of  compensation  received  by  them.  A  rough 
estimate  of  averages  can  be  made,  however,  which  will  probably  be 
found  to  l?e  not  far  from  the  truth.  The  following  table  exhibits  for 
each  of  the  adopted  periods,  the  average  number  of  line  officers  on  duty 
at  the  Observatory,  including  the  Superintendent ;  the  average  compen- 
sation received  by  them  for  such  service,  roughly  estimated ;  and  the 
average  of  the  total  annual  expenses  for  current  operating  purposes  in 
the  respective  periods : 


PERIOD. 

No.  Line 
Officers. 

Average  Pay  of 
Line  Officers. 

Total  Annual  Re- 
sources of  the 
Observatory. 

1867-1873  

4 

$10  400 

$47  000 

1873-1879  

5 

12,800 

56  000 

1879-1885  

9 

19,500 

60,500 

1885-1891  

10 

17  500 

60  800 

Assembling  the  separate  items,  it  appears  that  from  June  30, 1867,  to 
July  1, 1891,  there  has  been  expended  for  the  Observatory  on  account  of 
current  expenses  about  $1,346,000 ;  and  for  extraordinary  expenses,  not 
including  appropriations  on  account  of  the  Transits  of  Venus,  which 
should  not  be  considered  chargeable  to  the  Observatory  alone,  a  total  of 
$548,480.  For  the  current  fiscal  year  the  appropriation  for  the  new  Ob- 
servatory is  $136,689,  and  for  current  maintenance  the  expenditures  will 
probably  reach  $66,000.  This  gives  an  estimated  total  expenditure  for 
all  purposes  in  relation  to  the  Naval  Observatory  during  the  twenty-five 
years  following  June  30, 1867,  of  very  nearly  $2,100,000,  or  about  $84,000 
per  annum. 

Assuming  that  the  existence  of  the  Naval  Observatory  has  made  no  dif- 
ference in  the  number  of  officers  of  the  line  of  the  Navy  that  would  have 
been  employed  by  the  Government,  and  deducting  the  amount  of  salary 
paid  to  them,  the  total  charge  for  current  expenses  has  been  about  $985,000 
during  the  twenty-four  years.  Including  the  present  fiscal  year,  and 
adding  the  amounts  for  extraordinary  expenditures,  as  before,  the  total 
for  twenty-five  years  is  about  $1,720,000, , or  not  far  from  $69,000  per 
annum — when  the  pay  of  line  officers  is  left  out  of  the  account. 


Pamphlet 
Binder 

Gaylord  Bros.,  Inc. 

Stockton,  Calif. 
T.  M.  Reg.  U.S.  Pat. Off. 


M67214 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


